Guest guest Posted June 29, 2005 Report Share Posted June 29, 2005 >> No animal in nature drinks milk after being weaned << No animal in nature uses a computer, either. I think that milk foods are perfectly healthful, wholesome foods (if they are raw, grass fed, handled properly, etc) and I don't really care if they are " natural " or not, as long as they are beneficial. I do not argue that they are ESSENTIAL. Clearly they are not. But they are nutritious, wholesome, and tasty. That's good enough for me. Christie Caber Feidh ish Deerhounds Holistically Raising Our Dogs Since 1986 http://www.caberfeidh.com http://doggedblog.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 29, 2005 Report Share Posted June 29, 2005 On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 10:18:47 -0000 José Barbosa <jcmbarbosa52@...> wrote: > 1. No animal in nature drinks milk after being weaned, and no > animal suffers from a bone disease if he is submitted to his > ancestral diet and lifestyle. First, animals don't do a lot of things we do, including joining and exchanging info on email groups like this. They don't cook their food either. Does that mean we should eat 100% raw. This line of reasoning, IMO, is quite useless. Second some animals DO drink milk after being weaned. Someone made a post awhile ago (might have been on Beyond Price) about adult bulls I believe stealing milk from nursing mothers. And I just read another post in the last several days making reference to another animal where the adults drink milk (can't remember what group it was on). > 2. The peoples from Asia who haven't drunk milk for many years > don't suffer from a bone condition (or only very rarely), especially > not from osteoporosis. I don't think you will find anyone here arguing that you can't have an adequate diet without milk. Dr. Price never made that argument. > 3. The peoples who consume a lot of milk, cheese and yoghurt [he > goes on to mention Americans, Swedes and the Dutch] provide the > largest contingent of individuals suffering from osteoporosis and > prone to hip fractures after they are over 50. This means nothing without a breakdown of the kind of milk, form of milk, quality of milk, ad infinitum ad nauseam. And it applies to all the rest of his comments #4 through #9. ============================================================ " So this is how freedom dies -- to thunderous applause. " (Senator Padme Amidala in " Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith " ) ============================================================ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 29, 2005 Report Share Posted June 29, 2005 Hi Christie: I am putting together parts of two posts of yours. Hope you don't mind... >> Any emotional source? << I completely and utterly reject the idea that emotions cause cancer. *** I have a more moderate opinion on that. Negative emotions are often associated with cancer, and if you can't overcome them, all physical therapies will be much less successful. If a sudden shock in your life can make you lose your wits or even go insane, why couldn't an emotionally messed up and stressful life lead to disease as well? I will say it in other words: I wouldn't support that negative emotions alone generate cancer, but they can propitiate it, especially if the " terrain " is weak, if you see what it means. Emotions act as coadjutors, so to say. > >> No animal in nature drinks milk after being weaned << > > No animal in nature uses a computer, either. *** I know this argument is apparently flawed. (slethbotanist) has seen through it, too. But your " fallacy " and 's lie here: only humans eat cooked food, wear clothes and use computers and e-mails. So, in that respect, humans and animals can't be compared. But both animals (I mean mammals) and humans drink/suck milk during infancy (let us hope from their respective mothers) and both are weaned at a certain point. They have this much in common and can therefore be compared. No mammal, save for certain anomalous situations, gets milk (and never from another species?) after a certain age, but humans go on. Isn't this food for thought? *** And another point: in order to get milk, you have to keep a female over-lactating, whether it is a cow, a goat or a sheep. How forceful is that? >> I think that milk foods are > perfectly healthful, wholesome foods (if they are raw, grass fed, handled > properly, etc) and I don't really care if they are " natural " or not, as long > as they are beneficial. *** This is your opinion and as such I honour and respect it. There are people who have a different view and experience from yours. > > I do not argue that they are ESSENTIAL. Clearly they are not. But they are > nutritious, wholesome, and tasty. That's good enough for me. *** I agree: milk foods are not essential and what is more, controversial. There are many other foods that are likewise nutritious, wholesome and tasty and capable of replacing dairy without the inconveniences and the difficulties to get it right. You are a lucky one to be able to use dairy without problems. José > Christie > Caber Feidh ish Deerhounds > Holistically Raising Our Dogs Since 1986 > http://www.caberfeidh.com > http://doggedblog.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 29, 2005 Report Share Posted June 29, 2005 On 6/29/05, José Barbosa <jcmbarbosa52@...> wrote: > *** I know this argument is apparently flawed. > (slethbotanist) has seen through it, too. But your " fallacy " and > 's lie here: only humans eat cooked food, wear clothes and use > computers and e-mails. So, in that respect, humans and animals can't > be compared. But both animals (I mean mammals) and humans drink/suck > milk during infancy (let us hope from their respective mothers) and > both are weaned at a certain point. They have this much in common and > can therefore be compared. No mammal, save for certain anomalous > situations, gets milk (and never from another species?) after a > certain age, but humans go on. Isn't this food for thought? Both humans and animals eat food, so eating cooked food : eating food :: drinking milk after infancy : drinking milk. While email and clothes have no basis for comparison, cooking food has a similar basis for comparison to drinking milk after infancy, so to the extent that your reasoning implies we should not drink milk as adults, it similarly and necessarily implies that we should eat a 100% raw diet. > *** I agree: milk foods are not essential and what is more, > controversial. There are many other foods that are likewise > nutritious, wholesome and tasty and capable of replacing dairy > without the inconveniences and the difficulties to get it right. You > are a lucky one to be able to use dairy without problems. IIRC, in a previous post you listed these foods as a) seafood shellfish c) nuts. All three of these are either controversial or are surrounded by various difficulties and inconveniences or some combination thereof. Nuts must be properly prepared, although there is controversy about whether or not the trypsin inhibitors are harmful to growth and digestion or beneficial for preventing cancer (similar to soy), and varioius allergies to nuts abound that can, I think, be potentially lethal. The mercury in fish is controversial, and many promote fish as a great health-promoter and others decry it as an abomination due to its metal content. Shellfish are even more controversial, being held even higher on a pedestal in some circles for their nutrient-density, and being " anathema " in other circles not only because of their metal content but additionally because of their scavenging of viruses and parasites. Several religions prohibit their consumption entirely. I'm not so sure the situation with these foods is considerably smoother than that with dairy. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 29, 2005 Report Share Posted June 29, 2005 --- In , <slethnobotanist@y...> wrote: > Second some animals DO drink milk after being weaned. Someone made a > post awhile ago (might have been on Beyond Price) about adult bulls I > believe stealing milk from nursing mothers. And I just read another post > in the last several days making reference to another animal where the > adults drink milk (can't remember what group it was on). > I wrote that. I have witnessed adult bulls " robbing " milk from lactating cows in a mixed herd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 2005 Report Share Posted June 30, 2005 > Both humans and animals eat food, so eating cooked food : eating food > :: drinking milk after infancy : drinking milk. While email and > clothes have no basis for comparison, cooking food has a similar basis > for comparison to drinking milk after infancy, so to the extent that > your reasoning implies we should not drink milk as adults, it > similarly and necessarily implies that we should eat a 100% raw diet. > ** - Well, to start with, milk isn`t really something to be drunk, but to be sucked. That is why females have nipples and babies have no teeth. Maybe in an ideal world, in the utopian world of instinctotherapy, we should eat only raw foods. But, while I don`t intend to pass a value judgment on cooking, cooking has had a decisive role in giving man the face he shows. We have been cooking food from time immemorial, to use a worn-out expression. I don`t think we have been ~drinking~ milk from a different species that long and especially on such a regular basis. So it makes not much sense, in my opinion, to plead for all raw food just because animals in nature eat raw or because we shouldn`t be ~drinking~ milk likewise. Shall we be mixing different things again? > > *** I agree: milk foods are not essential and what is more, > > controversial. There are many other foods that are likewise > > nutritious, wholesome and tasty and capable of replacing dairy > > without the inconveniences and the difficulties to get it right. You > > are a lucky one to be able to use dairy without problems. > > IIRC, in a previous post you listed these foods as a) seafood > shellfish c) nuts. All three of these are either controversial or are > surrounded by various difficulties and inconveniences or some > combination thereof. Nuts must be properly prepared, although there > is controversy about whether or not the trypsin inhibitors are harmful > to growth and digestion or beneficial for preventing cancer (similar > to soy), and varioius allergies to nuts abound that can, I think, be > potentially lethal. The mercury in fish is controversial, and many > promote fish as a great health-promoter and others decry it as an > abomination due to its metal content. Shellfish are even more > controversial, being held even higher on a pedestal in some circles > for their nutrient-density, and being " anathema " in other circles not > only because of their metal content but additionally because of their > scavenging of viruses and parasites. Several religions prohibit their > consumption entirely. > > I'm not so sure the situation with these foods is considerably > smoother than that with dairy. ** I didn`t mean shellfish, but sardines. Did I really type shellfish? If I did, that was a mistake. I am sorry. You are right to say that all of these foods (especially shrimp for some) can present potential problems to health. As a matter of fact, not one single category of food is exempt from dangers in our present world, but as I see it, the `dangers` of milk are inherent in it, whereas the dangers of say fish are circumstancial. In other words, even raw organic milk and dairy can pose problems to many many people. From all points of view, including the psychological, I agree it isn`t easy at all to replace dairy. Anyway, let me enlarge that list of foods that can possibly do - almonds, Brazil nuts, dried seaweed, raw cabbage, watercress, mung beans, dried figs and dates, grain germ, beetroot leaves, buckwheat, bone broth, etc. > Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 2005 Report Share Posted June 30, 2005 > > > Second some animals DO drink milk after being weaned. Someone made a > > post awhile ago (might have been on Beyond Price) about adult bulls I > > believe stealing milk from nursing mothers. And I just read another > post > > in the last several days making reference to another animal where the > > adults drink milk (can't remember what group it was on). > > > > I wrote that. I have witnessed adult bulls " robbing " milk from > lactating cows in a mixed herd. I don`t deny this. My experience with animals is not that rich. However, I remember that my puppies and kittens got rejected by their mothers as soon as they started developing teeth. Therefore I can only imagine that a bull will have to compel a lactating cow to yield him some milk, if there is no other food around or if he is deranged. Probably she will not give it out of her free will. Unless there is some sexual connotation here? However, I can`t imagine a female imposing her desire for milk on another female. So I am bound to think that, all in all, this is a very special occurrence. Anyway, it is milk from the same species. I can`t imagine humans doing that to each other for that matter. Carlo > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 2005 Report Share Posted June 30, 2005 I can`t imagine humans doing > that to each other for that matter. , such imaginations I have! B. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 2005 Report Share Posted June 30, 2005 > Re: milk & dairy > >Anyway, it is milk from the same species. I can`t imagine humans doing >that to each other for that matter. > > Carlo Uh boy...you don't know who you're talking to by saying such a thing to THIS list. LOL! We've been down this road many times. Let me add another twist...not only do I plan to let my husband suckle my breast milk, but I plan to pump some for myself too! And maybe kefir-ize it...so many possibilities. <weg> Suze Fisher Lapdog Design, Inc. Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine http://www.westonaprice.org ---------------------------- “The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times.” -- Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher. The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics <http://www.thincs.org> ---------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 2005 Report Share Posted June 30, 2005 José Barbosa wrote: > ** - Well, to start with, milk isn`t really something to be > drunk, but to be sucked. That is why females have nipples and babies > have no teeth. Sucking is the action that it takes to draw the liquid into the mouth, but does not involve swallowing. Drinking involves taking the liquid into the mouth *and* swallowing. So you *do* drink milk whether you suck it out of a nipple, a straw or from a glass. Next time you drink out of a glass take note that there is a still a subtle act of sucking taking place. From Webster's Dictionary SUCK: " drawing liquid into the mouth " DRINK: " to take in and swallow (liquid) " SWALLOW: " pass through the esophagus as part of eating or drinking " Funny how this whole conversation makes me want to learn even more about using raw milk, not less. I have great visions of raising a few Nigerian Dwarf Goats, making my own butter, cheese and yogurt. I'm excited about working towards a " self-contained " farm. I believe that humans were given a gift to see beyond the confines of animal instinct, to live outside of the blueprint of our species, to make decisions and build upon the gifts of nature. The idea of smoking pork to be used as bacon isn't much different to me from milking a goat or preparing the ground for seed. Neither are something done *consciously* by any other species but I have the mind and the dexterity to do so. In my opinion, we cross the line of nature when we start adding chemicals and chemical preservatives to the food, the ground or the air, not when we enjoy and benefit from the gifts of another species. I don't have the time or the inclination to argue opinions, it's silly and a waste of time. I just thought I'd share one of my own opinions, one that is okay for people to reject, disagree with or put me down for because it's one of the few things I'm solidly secure. Peace. RVT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 2005 Report Share Posted June 30, 2005 RE: milk & dairy Let me add another twist...not only do I plan to let my husband suckle my breast milk, but I plan to pump some for myself too! And maybe kefir-ize it...so many possibilities. Suze Fisher ===================== Suze, Do you remember the book Grapes of Wrath by Steinbeck? It featured the lives of poor farmers in the United States during the so-called dustbowl years. In the final chapter of the book, a nursing mother lets a starving man suckle her breast. It was considered very risque at the time (maybe it still is). Many years ago, an acquaintance of mine who was nursing her baby suckled a baby fawn whose mother had been shot by a hunter. She said it was one of the most memorable experiences of her life. When the deer grew up, it would visit her often. She remained close to the animal as long as it lived. I'm sure the deer appreciated the nurturing. I know I would, no matter what form that nurturing took. Nenah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 2005 Report Share Posted June 30, 2005 We have been cooking food from time immemorial, to use a worn-out expression. I don`t think we have been ~drinking~ milk from a different species that long and especially on such a regular basis. ------------ Hi JC, According to the food timeline, cheese eating is older than milk drinking (sucking, whatever). It's a great site. http://www.foodtimeline.org/ Milk and dairy are controversial in terms of health. I have seen vegan doctors use the same data as Dr. Masson about worldwide milk consumption and osteoporosis linking, but other factors besides the dairy could be involved. Or it could be that the quality of the dairy has been changed - lower vitamin D for instance. People have been consuming dairy for thousands of years, after all. So I don't know. I do know that weight bearing exercise keeps the skeletal system dense in the later years. So perhaps the lack of exercise we are experiencing in the technological age is the reason we are seeing more prevalence in this bone-reducing disease. Probably many factors are involved. Personally I am ambivalent with dairy. I love sour cream, butter and cheese, but can take it or leave it mostly. I never was much of a milk drinker. But then, dairy products have been food for my ancestors longer than wheat, according to the historical records I have seen on the subject, so I feel it is an option for me anyway. We humans have always used tools and gone where no other animal has gone with ingenuity, so I figure, why not dairy if it suits you? Deanna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 2005 Report Share Posted June 30, 2005 On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 16:35:02 -0000 José Barbosa <jcmbarbosa52@...> wrote: > > > > Both humans and animals eat food, so eating cooked food : eating > food > > :: drinking milk after infancy : drinking milk. While email and > > clothes have no basis for comparison, cooking food has a similar > basis > > for comparison to drinking milk after infancy, so to the extent that > > your reasoning implies we should not drink milk as adults, it > > similarly and necessarily implies that we should eat a 100% raw > diet. > > > > ** - Well, to start with, milk isn`t really something to be > drunk, but to be sucked. That is why females have nipples and babies > have no teeth. , You must have come up with this one on the fly, eh? I mean if I suck something out don't I have to drink it down? Don't I have the option of spitting it out? Which is to say sucking and drinking aren't necessarily the same thing. At any rate, while I have other things to say about your idea above, I will let parse it, if he so chooses, since you directed it at him. >Maybe in an ideal world, in the utopian world of > instinctotherapy, Hmmm...I fail to see the utopian nature of living by instinct. > we should eat only raw foods. But, while I don`t > intend to pass a value judgment on cooking, cooking has had a > decisive role in giving man the face he shows. We have been cooking > food from time immemorial, to use a worn-out expression. I don`t > think we have been ~drinking~ milk from a different species that long > and especially on such a regular basis. So it makes not much sense, > in my opinion, to plead for all raw food just because animals in > nature eat raw or because we shouldn`t be ~drinking~ milk likewise. > Shall we be mixing different things again? I'm confused here. So before I answer on what I think you are saying, perhaps you can clarify for me. <snip> > > I'm not so sure the situation with these foods is considerably > > smoother than that with dairy. > > ** I didn`t mean shellfish, but sardines. Did I really type > shellfish? If I did, that was a mistake. I am sorry. But as far as I can tell, that change doesn't impact the point was making. >You are right to > say that all of these foods (especially shrimp for some) can present > potential problems to health. As a matter of fact, not one single > category of food is exempt from dangers in our present world, but as > I see it, the `dangers` of milk are inherent in it, whereas the > dangers of say fish are circumstancial. With all due respect, this is a *false* dichotomy. I could just as easily argue that poor soil and genetic engineering are circumstantial factors that afflict milk (which they do) and the problems they cause are not inherent to milk per se. And in the end who cares? If I can through intellect and creativity transform something that would otherwise be inedible to a food that becomes beneficial, that is part of the glory of being human, and becomes a *net* benefit to mankind. > In other words, even raw > organic milk and dairy can pose problems to many many people. Yes, but as I have taken great pains to point out, raw and organic is *not* the touchstone of quality regarding dairy (or any food for that matter) that so many suppose. >From > all points of view, including the psychological, I agree it isn`t > easy at all to replace dairy. Anyway, let me enlarge that list of > foods that can possibly do - almonds, Brazil nuts, dried seaweed, raw > cabbage, watercress, mung beans, dried figs and dates, grain germ, > beetroot leaves, buckwheat, bone broth, etc. Just about everything in that list which you suggest as a replacement for dairy, is " troublesome " like dairy. Here is a principle of WAP that you may not be aware of. All of Price's primitives went *out of their way* to acquire certain foods, especially foods from the sea (including shellfish), even groups who were inland, and ate some form of raw animal foods. I don't recall *any* exceptions. Also, *all* of Price's primitives took pains to properly prepare foods that were problematic in their natural state. I don't recall *any* exceptions. It is a fact of life that obtaining and preparing wholesome foods is a " troublesome " issue, whether you live in a land untouched by outsiders, or were a merchant in Rome, or a " modern " in America with food stores on nearly every corner. The " troubles " may differ, but the principle is the same. take care, ============================================================ " So this is how freedom dies -- to thunderous applause. " (Senator Padme Amidala in " Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith " ) ============================================================ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 2005 Report Share Posted June 30, 2005 --- In , " Nenah Sylver " <nenah@b...> wrote: > RE: milk & dairy > > > Let me add another twist...not only do I plan to let my husband suckle my breast milk, but I plan to pump some for myself too! And maybe kefir-ize it...so many > possibilities. > > Suze Fisher > > ===================== > Suze, > Do you remember the book Grapes of Wrath by Steinbeck? It featured the lives of poor farmers in the United States during the so- called dustbowl years. > > In the final chapter of the book, a nursing mother lets a starving man suckle her breast. It was considered very risque at the time (maybe it still is). > > Many years ago, an acquaintance of mine who was nursing her baby suckled a baby fawn whose mother had been shot by a hunter. She said it was one of the most memorable experiences of her life. When the deer grew up, it would visit her often. She remained close to the animal as long as it lived. > > I'm sure the deer appreciated the nurturing. I know I would, no matter what form that nurturing took. > > Nenah > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 2005 Report Share Posted June 30, 2005 > We have been cooking food from time immemorial, to use a worn-out > expression. I don`t think we have been ~drinking~ milk from a > different species that long and especially on such a regular basis. > ------------ > > Hi JC, > > According to the food timeline, cheese eating is older than milk > drinking (sucking, whatever). It's a great site. > > http://www.foodtimeline.org/ > > Milk and dairy are controversial in terms of health. I have seen > vegan doctors use the same data as Dr. Masson about worldwide milk > consumption and osteoporosis linking, but other factors besides the > dairy could be involved. Or it could be that the quality of the dairy > has been changed - lower vitamin D for instance. People have been > consuming dairy for thousands of years, after all. So I don't know. > I do know that weight bearing exercise keeps the skeletal system dense > in the later years. So perhaps the lack of exercise we are > experiencing in the technological age is the reason we are seeing more > prevalence in this bone-reducing disease. Probably many factors are > involved. > > Personally I am ambivalent with dairy. I love sour cream, butter and > cheese, but can take it or leave it mostly. I never was much of a > milk drinker. But then, dairy products have been food for my > ancestors longer than wheat, according to the historical records I > have seen on the subject, so I feel it is an option for me anyway. We > humans have always used tools and gone where no other animal has gone > with ingenuity, so I figure, why not dairy if it suits you? > > > Deanna Hello Deanna: That was a very much balanced way of saying things. However, unless I haven't seen it clearly, I notice the tendency here and there (not with you) to make out of milk a sort of guardian angel of one's health. I think this is like gilding the pill. Especially milk and dairy, like wheat and grains, demand a lot of caution from all of us. Fruit, as well. Well, everything, to talk frankly. By the way, Denna, Masson is not a doctor. I mean he has not earned that title at a university. At best he is a naturopath. Thank you for the input. José Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 2005 Report Share Posted June 30, 2005 > > ** - Well, to start with, milk isn`t really something to be > > drunk, but to be sucked. That is why females have nipples and babies > > have no teeth. > > Sucking is the action that it takes to draw the liquid into the mouth, > but does not involve swallowing. Drinking involves taking the liquid > into the mouth *and* swallowing. So you *do* drink milk whether you > suck it out of a nipple, a straw or from a glass. Next time you drink > out of a glass take note that there is a still a subtle act of sucking > taking place. > > From Webster's Dictionary > > SUCK: " drawing liquid into the mouth " > DRINK: " to take in and swallow (liquid) " > SWALLOW: " pass through the esophagus as part of eating or drinking " ** Hello : Isn't all of this preciosity? Yet I still see a difference between sucking and drinking. Small children can suck instinctively, but I wonder whether they are able to drink from a glass, even if you hold it (the glass) up for them. ** What I wanted to stress was the fact that milk has a very definite source or origin: it was designed to be obtained from the teats of a lactating female by her own infant(s). Anything away from that is possible, is clever opportunism, but may include risks. > Funny how this whole conversation makes me want to learn even more about > using raw milk, not less. I have great visions of raising a few > Nigerian Dwarf Goats, making my own butter, cheese and yogurt. I'm > excited about working towards a " self-contained " farm. > > I believe that humans were given a gift to see beyond the confines of > animal instinct, to live outside of the blueprint of our species, to > make decisions and build upon the gifts of nature. The idea of smoking > pork to be used as bacon isn't much different to me from milking a goat > or preparing the ground for seed. Neither are something done > *consciously* by any other species but I have the mind and the dexterity > to do so. In my opinion, we cross the line of nature when we start > adding chemicals and chemical preservatives to the food, the ground or > the air, not when we enjoy and benefit from the gifts of another species. ** I do appreciate this. I like the comparison between smoking pork and milking a goat to make cheese. This is the ancestral beautiful technique of turning " raw " materials into edible food. I don't despise either. Nevertheless, milk and dairy, no matter what kind you think of, have their drawbacks, as many folks have shown. Maybe you'd prefer the image of a double-edged knife. Better to tread on that soil with a lot of care. > I don't have the time or the inclination to argue opinions, it's silly > and a waste of time. I just thought I'd share one of my own opinions, > one that is okay for people to reject, disagree with or put me down for > because it's one of the few things I'm solidly secure. > > Peace. ** As far as I am concerned, you are welcome. Peace back to you. José > RVT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 2005 Report Share Posted June 30, 2005 > That was a very much balanced way of saying things. However, unless I > haven't seen it clearly, I notice the tendency here and there (not > with you) to make out of milk a sort of guardian angel of one's > health. I think this is like gilding the pill. Especially milk and > dairy, like wheat and grains, demand a lot of caution from all of us. > Fruit, as well. Well, everything, to talk frankly. José , Yes, I think milk/dairy may be a bit glorified in the modern day. I think - but don't know for sure - that perhaps consumption of milk has increased in the US since World War II. Cream and butter seem to be mentioned more in old cookbooks, but this idea may well be curdled <g>. I think it has its place in a health diet for many people, and many cultures have been blessed by the use of it over time. But we should enjoy a variety of foods that are grown well and not be too cautious nor too excessively idealistic about particular foods, else we develop indigestion, lol. I know that we share this idea of mealtime pleasures not being ruined by worries of what is on the table. Restrictions for real problems aside, we should enjoy what we have in our lives, giving thanks for the cow, fish, kale, etc. with which we can be nourished. It is easy to get bogged down in particulars that may not be as important as, say food additives and other modern nightmare items passing off as food. > By the way, Denna, Masson is not a doctor. I mean he has not > earned that title at a university. At best he is a naturopath. Interesting. Naturopaths in the US are trained much in conventional medicine but also in the homeopathic, Chinese, and other traditional systems of health care. It varies from state to state, but the NDs I have consulted were able to perform minor surgeries as needed, but took least invasive approaches first. One ND did recommend specific vaccines like tetanus, as the disease was a bad one to get, and the vaccine was not so risky. It would be interesting to hear what others think about this approach. I think that it is the best method if NDs can do all MDs can - attend to the injuries by knowing how the allopathic medicine, yet also using the natural ways of healing first and foremost. That way, if I break my arm, I can see the same person who helps me prevent disease on a regular basis, rather than having to see an MD for such basic care. BTW, do you consume dairy? Forgive me if I missed any prior comment you may have made on the subject. Cheers! Deanna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 2005 Report Share Posted June 30, 2005 * Hi: * I have often questioned myself as to whether I am entitled to be on this list or any other list for that matter. For one main thing: English is not my main language. At times I not only have difficulty to express myself, but also can't readily understand what is going on, especially when it comes to idioms. This is a weak point in me. The good news is that I have a dictionary always at hand, and I can often [but not always] guess the subtle meaning of something said. > > > > ** - Well, to start with, milk isn`t really something to be > > drunk, but to be sucked. That is why females have nipples and babies > > have no teeth. > > , > > You must have come up with this one on the fly, eh? I mean if I suck > something out don't I have to drink it down? Don't I have the option of > spitting it out? Which is to say sucking and drinking aren't necessarily > the same thing. At any rate, while I have other things to say about your > idea above, I will let parse it, if he so chooses, since you > directed it at him. * So what is " on the fly " ? Something I have invented myself as a trick? A scapegoat? Something I am presenting without thinking it over? Or am I being irresponsible by dropping a silly idea? If this is relevant to the issue, which is which? > >Maybe in an ideal world, in the utopian world of > > instinctotherapy, > > Hmmm...I fail to see the utopian nature of living by instinct. * And again, I fail to see what you mean here. Perhaps you were too laconic to me. Do you mean to say it is not utopian to live by instinct? For me, it is utopian to try to live only by instinct. In the present century. In our current society. Do you know the whole credo of true instinctos? They sort of despise the whole of civilization. Do you want that for yourself? > > > we should eat only raw foods. But, while I don`t > > intend to pass a value judgment on cooking, cooking has had a > > decisive role in giving man the face he shows. We have been cooking > > food from time immemorial, to use a worn-out expression. I don`t > > think we have been ~drinking~ milk from a different species that long > > and especially on such a regular basis. So it makes not much sense, > > in my opinion, to plead for all raw food just because animals in > > nature eat raw or because we shouldn`t be ~drinking~ milk likewise. > > Shall we be mixing different things again? > > I'm confused here. So before I answer on what I think you are saying, > perhaps you can clarify for me. > * The idea is probably confusing. In plain English: animals don't cook and don't suck/drink milk after they have been weaned. To say that we, as grown-ups, shouldn't be drinking milk from another species doesn't imply that we should abandon cooking techniques. Even if cooking has some disadvantages in terms of health, it has proven safe in most condition and " has favoured a reduction in size of the teeth and muscles involved in chewing; consenquently, the bones of the jaws became finer and smaller " , producing the face of modern man. Drinking milk is not something universal, not equally beneficial to everybody, and only recently introduced to mankind on a large scale. Can we compare those two things and draw conclusions? I don't think so. (But I don't know if I made things look brighter now.) > <snip> > > > > I'm not so sure the situation with these foods is considerably > > > smoother than that with dairy. > > > > ** I didn`t mean shellfish, but sardines. Did I really type > > shellfish? If I did, that was a mistake. I am sorry. > > But as far as I can tell, that change doesn't impact the point was > making. * I have yet to meet someone who has a problem eating sardines. Maybe there are. I know many people who can't handle milk, even raw milk. Ok, you are going to say that they are " drinking " the wrong stuff. So, the problem is overcoming the difficulty to find the right stuff. Encountering this " ok milk " is almost like finding the fountain of youth. Perhaps nowhere to be found. > >You are right to > > say that all of these foods (especially shrimp for some) can present > > potential problems to health. As a matter of fact, not one single > > category of food is exempt from dangers in our present world, but as > > I see it, the `dangers` of milk are inherent in it, whereas the > > dangers of say fish are circumstancial. > > With all due respect, this is a *false* dichotomy. I could just as > easily argue that poor soil and genetic engineering are circumstantial > factors that afflict milk (which they do) and the problems they cause > are not inherent to milk per se. * I fail to see the false dichotomy, but you know better than I, so I will be reticent. > > And in the end who cares? If I can through intellect and creativity > transform something that would otherwise be inedible to a food that > becomes beneficial, that is part of the glory of being human, and > becomes a *net* benefit to mankind. * Well, this is like and especially like Christie, isn't it? Who cares? > > > In other words, even raw > > organic milk and dairy can pose problems to many many people. > > Yes, but as I have taken great pains to point out, raw and organic is > *not* the touchstone of quality regarding dairy (or any food for that > matter) that so many suppose. * Oh please, don't fatigue yourself [great pains]. > >From > > all points of view, including the psychological, I agree it isn`t > > easy at all to replace dairy. Anyway, let me enlarge that list of > > foods that can possibly do - almonds, Brazil nuts, dried seaweed, raw > > cabbage, watercress, mung beans, dried figs and dates, grain germ, > > beetroot leaves, buckwheat, bone broth, etc. > > Just about everything in that list which you suggest as a replacement > for dairy, is " troublesome " like dairy. * Just about everything? I don't think so. > > Here is a principle of WAP that you may not be aware of. All of Price's > primitives went *out of their way* to acquire certain foods, especially > foods from the sea (including shellfish), even groups who were inland, > and ate some form of raw animal foods. I don't recall *any* exceptions. > > Also, *all* of Price's primitives took pains to properly prepare foods > that were problematic in their natural state. I don't recall *any* > exceptions. > > It is a fact of life that obtaining and preparing wholesome foods is a > " troublesome " issue, whether you live in a land untouched by outsiders, > or were a merchant in Rome, or a " modern " in America with food stores on > nearly every corner. The " troubles " may differ, but the principle is the > same. * I see. I have nothing to add. You are teaching me. But a little like Galileo Galilei (though I am much smaller than him in all senses), I would repeat: E pur, si muove! Take care, you too. José > take care, > > > ============================================================ > " So this is how freedom dies -- to thunderous applause. " > (Senator Padme Amidala in " Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith " ) > ============================================================ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 2005 Report Share Posted June 30, 2005 > > That was a very much balanced way of saying things. However, unless I > > haven't seen it clearly, I notice the tendency here and there (not > > with you) to make out of milk a sort of guardian angel of one's > > health. I think this is like gilding the pill. Especially milk and > > dairy, like wheat and grains, demand a lot of caution from all of us. > > Fruit, as well. Well, everything, to talk frankly. > > José , > > Yes, I think milk/dairy may be a bit glorified in the modern day. I > think - but don't know for sure - that perhaps consumption of milk has > increased in the US since World War II. Cream and butter seem to be > mentioned more in old cookbooks, but this idea may well be curdled <g>. > > I think it has its place in a health diet for many people, and many > cultures have been blessed by the use of it over time. But we should > enjoy a variety of foods that are grown well and not be too cautious > nor too excessively idealistic about particular foods, else we develop > indigestion, lol. I know that we share this idea of mealtime > pleasures not being ruined by worries of what is on the table. > Restrictions for real problems aside, we should enjoy what we have in > our lives, giving thanks for the cow, fish, kale, etc. with which we > can be nourished. It is easy to get bogged down in particulars that > may not be as important as, say food additives and other modern > nightmare items passing off as food. Very well said. > BTW, do you consume dairy? Forgive me if I missed any prior comment > you may have made on the subject. In the past I ate a lot of cheese and yoghurt. Never liked plain milk. Now in most cases I limit myself to some butter and maybe some whipped cream in my coffee. I don't much like goat's cheese and raw cheese. I will eat some fresh cheese or some parmesan once a while. And ice-cream, too, whenever I eat out (once or twice a month). I am not a purist, Deanna. Cheers. Deanna. > Cheers! > Deanna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 2005 Report Share Posted June 30, 2005 I am > not a purist, Deanna. > > Cheers. > > Deanna. > > > > Cheers! > > Deanna ROFLMAO! Oh, JC you have made my day by adopting my name. Ah ha ha, it reads like I am writing back and forth to myself <snort>. I think you are brave and do very well for yourself in English (I am commenting on your note to ). You are a natural! And you bring to the table very good ideas, questions and panache. So keep it up, my friend. Truly, José <g> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 2005 Report Share Posted June 30, 2005 On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 21:39:10 -0000 José Barbosa <jcmbarbosa52@...> wrote: > * So what is " on the fly " ? Something I have invented myself as a > trick? A scapegoat? Something I am presenting without thinking it > over? Or am I being irresponsible by dropping a silly idea? If this > is relevant to the issue, which is which? Something done quickly and maybe not thought all the way through. I found your example of sucking versus drinking to be in that category. But if I am wrong, please forgive me and correct me. That is why I had the question mark at the end. The whole thread began with you drawing an analogy between the animal world and humans regarding milk drinking. I rejected that analogy and further stated that if consistent it would mean we would eat all raw. You came back and said no it wouldn't and gave your reasons why you thought so. tried to point out that yes it would. And so here we are. But your response seems to imply (and I could be wrong) that or myself thinks eating 100% raw should be advocated. Unlike some, I do think that is okay if it works for you, but I don't advocate that as *the* way to eat. Nobody in the WAP world does. > > >Maybe in an ideal world, in the utopian world of > > > instinctotherapy, > > > > Hmmm...I fail to see the utopian nature of living by instinct. > > * And again, I fail to see what you mean here. Perhaps you were too > laconic to me. Do you mean to say it is not utopian to live by > instinct? For me, it is utopian to try to live only by instinct. In > the present century. In our current society. Do you know the whole > credo of true instinctos? They sort of despise the whole of > civilization. Do you want that for yourself? I meant that living by instinct is no utopia, in fact it would be a disaster. <snip> > * The idea is probably confusing. In plain English: animals don't > cook and don't suck/drink milk after they have been weaned. To say > that we, as grown-ups, shouldn't be drinking milk from another > species doesn't imply that we should abandon cooking techniques. It does if you are consistent. But the problem I have with much of paleo thought is that it tends to be arbitrary (and speculative) on how it applies its principles. I noticed you have qualified your statement from drinking milk as adults to drinking milk from another species. Perhaps the breast milk comments caused you to make a change. Personally, I'm looking forward to enjoying some high brix human breast milk :-)))) >Even > if cooking has some disadvantages in terms of health, it has proven > safe in most condition and " has favoured a reduction in size of the > teeth and muscles involved in chewing; consenquently, the bones of > the jaws became finer and smaller " , producing the face of modern man. Best I can tell milk has proven safe in most conditions. The problem seems to lie mostly in the changes we moderns have brought about. Listen to what Dr. Ray Peat recently said: " I have been interested in the subject of " milk intolerance " for a long time, and have wondered why doctors in the US and England give it so much attention, while the people who drink the most milk, in the Samburu and Masai cultures, and the cultures of northern India, don't seem to have the problem. I doubt that this is a matter of genetic differences; for example this person: " I was recently diagnosed with lactose intolerance and so i had to eliminated milk and milk products from my diet. I live in the USA. However, on a recent trip to India, I had milk and all possible milk products there and it did not affect me at all! Has anyone else experienced this? Or does anyone have a possible explanation? " > Drinking milk is not something universal, I don't think anyone has ever argued such, at least not on this list >not equally beneficial to > everybody, but that could be said of almost *any* food, so why single out dairy? The only reason would be if you are bringing paleo assumptions to bear on this discussion. >and only recently introduced to mankind on a large scale. Wherever there have been animals there has been opportunity to drink/eat dairy. What is recent is the introduction of pasteurized holstein cow's milk on a large scale. By the way, I think fresh raw milk is *not* the ideal way to do dairy. > Can we compare those two things and draw conclusions? I don't think > so. (But I don't know if I made things look brighter now.) I don't think we can draw much in terms of authoritative conclusions from what animals do or don't do, which has been my point from the beginning. > > <snip> > > > > > > I'm not so sure the situation with these foods is considerably > > > > smoother than that with dairy. > > > > > > ** I didn`t mean shellfish, but sardines. Did I really type > > > shellfish? If I did, that was a mistake. I am sorry. > > > > But as far as I can tell, that change doesn't impact the point > was > > making. > > * I have yet to meet someone who has a problem eating sardines. made the point that seafood was controversial. In order to deal with that controversy one must make some " troublesome " choices. If sardines are perfectly alright (and are they?) then one must find a way to procure such on a regular basis unless one is given to the idea that canned sardines are okay. The fact that one has to LIMIT the kind of seafood one eats only proves the point he originally made. No category of food is without trouble. So for you to suggest that milk ought to be abandoned because its " trouble " only to suggest other food and food categories that are " trouble " , is, IMO, fallacious (i.e. without merit). >Maybe > there are. I know many people who can't handle milk, even raw milk. > Ok, you are going to say that they are " drinking " the wrong stuff. > So, the problem is overcoming the difficulty to find the right stuff. > Encountering this " ok milk " is almost like finding the fountain of > youth. Perhaps nowhere to be found. I don't know where you got that idea from. Certainly not from me. And certainly not from the testimony of many others who found a way to consume dairy on a regular basis even if their initial attempts proved problematic, including myself. Again I quote Dr. Peat: " I have been interested in the subject of " milk intolerance " for a long time, and have wondered why doctors in the US and England give it so much attention, while the people who drink the most milk, in the Samburu and Masai cultures, and the cultures of northern India, don't seem to have the problem. I doubt that this is a matter of genetic differences; for example this person: " I was recently diagnosed with lactose intolerance and so i had to eliminated milk and milk products from my diet. I live in the USA. However, on a recent trip to India, I had milk and all possible milk products there and it did not affect me at all! Has anyone else experienced this? Or does anyone have a possible explanation? " " This is no legendary search for some mythical fountain of youth. It is real in the here and now, with real people, like myself, really enjoying dairy *without* the problems that the " dairy is dangerous " /paleo crowd tell us about all the time. > > >You are right to > > > say that all of these foods (especially shrimp for some) can > present > > > potential problems to health. As a matter of fact, not one single > > > category of food is exempt from dangers in our present world, but > as > > > I see it, the `dangers` of milk are inherent in it, whereas the > > > dangers of say fish are circumstancial. > > > > With all due respect, this is a *false* dichotomy. I could just as > > easily argue that poor soil and genetic engineering are > circumstantial > > factors that afflict milk (which they do) and the problems they > cause > > are not inherent to milk per se. > > * I fail to see the false dichotomy, but you know better than I, so I > will be reticent. There is no need to be such. To borrow your words, in plain english, if I can find and drink milk that doesn't have a problem, after having drunk milk that did, then clearly the issue with milk is not " inherent. " > > And in the end who cares? If I can through intellect and creativity > > transform something that would otherwise be inedible to a food that > > becomes beneficial, that is part of the glory of being human, and > > becomes a *net* benefit to mankind. > > * Well, this is like and especially like Christie, isn't it? > Who cares? and Christie can more than fend for themselves, but did you miss what came after the " who cares " or does that not matter? If I couldn't transform the milk into a beneficial substance for me, then I would care. Since I can, I don't. > > > In other words, even raw > > > organic milk and dairy can pose problems to many many people. > > > > Yes, but as I have taken great pains to point out, raw and organic > is > > *not* the touchstone of quality regarding dairy (or any food for > that > > matter) that so many suppose. > > * Oh please, don't fatigue yourself [great pains]. I didn't fatigue myself. Another idiom perhaps you are missing because of the language barrier. Great pains meaning I took time and effort to point out particular facts, facts either you don't like or disagree with, which is fine But when you keep tromping out the " dairy is dangerous " mantra without any interaction as to those facts, either to disprove, accept them, or say I don't know, then I am compelled to point that out to you. Its not personal though, and I hope you don't take it that way. > > >From > > > all points of view, including the psychological, I agree it isn`t > > > easy at all to replace dairy. Anyway, let me enlarge that list of > > > foods that can possibly do - almonds, Brazil nuts, dried seaweed, > raw > > > cabbage, watercress, mung beans, dried figs and dates, grain > germ, > > > beetroot leaves, buckwheat, bone broth, etc. > > > > Just about everything in that list which you suggest as a > replacement > > for dairy, is " troublesome " like dairy. > > * Just about everything? I don't think so. *Almonds - require soaking before eating *Brazil nuts - ditto *dried seaweed - gotta make sure the source isn't polluted, possible problem with B12 analogues *raw cabbage - nice thyroid suppressing effect due to the goitrogens among other things *watercress - ? *dried figs and dates - sourcing problems, steamed even though supposedly raw, have they been sulphured, takes effort to find out and even then you might not know for sure. *grain germ - not sure what you are referring to *buckwheat - needs to be soaked *beetroot leaves - ? bet I can guess though *bone broth - ever made any? this stuff just doesn't show up on the kitchen table > > Here is a principle of WAP that you may not be aware of. All of > Price's > > primitives went *out of their way* to acquire certain foods, > especially > > foods from the sea (including shellfish), even groups who were > inland, > > and ate some form of raw animal foods. I don't recall *any* > exceptions. > > > > Also, *all* of Price's primitives took pains to properly prepare > foods > > that were problematic in their natural state. I don't recall *any* > > exceptions. > > > > It is a fact of life that obtaining and preparing wholesome foods > is a > > " troublesome " issue, whether you live in a land untouched by > outsiders, > > or were a merchant in Rome, or a " modern " in America with food > stores on > > nearly every corner. The " troubles " may differ, but the principle > is the > > same. > > * I see. I have nothing to add. You are teaching me. But a little > like Galileo Galilei (though I am much smaller than him in all > senses), I would repeat: E pur, si muove! I don't know. Have you ever read Nutrition and Physical Degeneration by Dr. Price? ============================================================ " So this is how freedom dies -- to thunderous applause. " (Senator Padme Amidala in " Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith " ) ============================================================ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 2005 Report Share Posted June 30, 2005 > * So what is " on the fly " ? > Something done quickly and maybe not thought all the way through. I > found your example of sucking versus drinking to be in that category. > But if I am wrong, please forgive me and correct me. That is why I had > the question mark at the end. # Maybe you are right, after all. On the fly (shouldn't it be on the flight?). I figure that came to me like an insight. But insights can be wrong, of course. > The whole thread began with you drawing an analogy between the animal > world and humans regarding milk drinking. I rejected that analogy and > further stated that if consistent it would mean we would eat all raw. > You came back and said no it wouldn't and gave your reasons why you > thought so. tried to point out that yes it would. And so here we are. # Because I saw no connection between eating raw and skipping dairy. Or between eating cooked and having dairy. I don't see that they related to each other. > But your response seems to imply (and I could be wrong) that Chris or > myself thinks eating 100% raw should be advocated. Unlike some, I do > think that is okay if it works for you, but I don't advocate that as > *the* way to eat. Nobody in the WAP world does. # Then it is okay to eat dairy if it works for you. What I am concerned with, worried about is generalizing this idea (dairy as a staple). In other words, it is not ok for everybody, maybe not for the majority of people. > I meant that living by instinct is no utopia, in fact it would be a > disaster. # Oh, I am sorry. I hadn't understood you, really. I thought you were focussing on the good aspects of an utopia. I don't know why I thought you yourself were an utopian. I apologize. See: on the fly. > <snip> > > > * The idea is probably confusing. In plain English: animals don't > > cook and don't suck/drink milk after they have been weaned. To say > > that we, as grown-ups, shouldn't be drinking milk from another > > species doesn't imply that we should abandon cooking techniques. > > It does if you are consistent. # So, do you eat all raw yourself? It may be a question of not only consistency, but also of sacrifice, of giving up social life. But the problem I have with much of paleo > thought is that it tends to be arbitrary (and speculative) on how it > applies its principles. > > I noticed you have qualified your statement from drinking milk as adults > to drinking milk from another species. Perhaps the breast milk comments > caused you to make a change. # Did it? I don't remember. Perhaps it simply reminded me of it. I was amused to hear people say those things. > > Personally, I'm looking forward to enjoying some high brix human breast > milk :-)))) # I believe you are. As for myself, I have no interest - in the milk. > >Even > > if cooking has some disadvantages in terms of health, it has proven > > safe in most condition and " has favoured a reduction in size of the > > teeth and muscles involved in chewing; consenquently, the bones of > > the jaws became finer and smaller " , producing the face of modern man. > > Best I can tell milk has proven safe in most conditions. The problem > seems to lie mostly in the changes we moderns have brought about. Listen > to what Dr. Ray Peat recently said: > > " I have been interested in the subject of " milk intolerance " for a > long time, and have wondered why doctors in the US and England give > it so much attention, while the people who drink the most milk, in > the Samburu and Masai cultures, and the cultures of northern India, > don't seem to have the problem. I doubt that this is a matter of > genetic differences; for example this person: " I was recently > diagnosed with lactose intolerance and so i had to eliminated milk > and milk products from my diet. I live in the USA. However, on a > recent trip to India, I had milk and all possible milk products > there and it did not affect me at all! Has anyone else experienced > this? Or does anyone have a possible explanation? " # This is interesting. This is telling something. I have often heard people say that on a trip, while in a foreign country, they can eat as they please and have no weight gain. And not even indigestion. Perhaps it has a subjective explanation. The novelty issue. > > Drinking milk is not something universal, > > I don't think anyone has ever argued such, at least not on this list # I didn't say anyone had. I was just raising a point. > >not equally beneficial to > > everybody, > > but that could be said of almost *any* food, so why single out dairy? > The only reason would be if you are bringing paleo assumptions to bear > on this discussion. # But we were basically talking about dairy, weren't we? > >and only recently introduced to mankind on a large scale. > > Wherever there have been animals there has been opportunity to drink/eat > dairy. What is recent is the introduction of pasteurized holstein cow's > milk on a large scale. # I don't know that Eskimoes or the natives in Brazil, before the Discovery, had milk. There were animals all around, though, but no cows, no goats, no sheep. But I see you are talking about " opportunities " , not reality. Perhaps it never occurred to the natives that they could perhaps try to milk a deer... > By the way, I think fresh raw milk is *not* the ideal way to do dairy. # Some people might disagree with you. > > Can we compare those two things and draw conclusions? I don't think > > so. (But I don't know if I made things look brighter now.) > > I don't think we can draw much in terms of authoritative conclusions from > what animals do or don't do, which has been my point from the beginning. > # Mine, as well, I suppose. > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > I'm not so sure the situation with these foods is considerably > > > > > smoother than that with dairy. > > > > > > > > ** I didn`t mean shellfish, but sardines. Did I really type > > > > shellfish? If I did, that was a mistake. I am sorry. > > > > > > But as far as I can tell, that change doesn't impact the point > > was > > > making. > > > > * I have yet to meet someone who has a problem eating sardines. > > made the point that seafood was controversial. In order to deal > with that controversy one must make some " troublesome " choices. If > sardines are perfectly alright (and are they?) then one must find a way > to procure such on a regular basis unless one is given to the idea that > canned sardines are okay. The fact that one has to LIMIT the kind of > seafood one eats only proves the point he originally made. No category > of food is without trouble. So for you to suggest that milk ought to be > abandoned because its " trouble " only to suggest other food and food categories > that are " trouble " , is, IMO, fallacious (i.e. without merit). # The problem with milk and dairy is that you hardly can have just a little. They are delicious and addictive. You seem to be able to live on them. And you want more. Here is where the problem comes. I don't think you meet the same problem when you make meat, fish or even eggs your staple food. But of course you can, though I think they are slightly less addictive than dairy. > >Maybe > > there are. I know many people who can't handle milk, even raw milk. > > Ok, you are going to say that they are " drinking " the wrong stuff. > > So, the problem is overcoming the difficulty to find the right stuff. > > Encountering this " ok milk " is almost like finding the fountain of > > youth. Perhaps nowhere to be found. > > I don't know where you got that idea from. Certainly not from me. And > certainly not from the testimony of many others who found a way to > consume dairy on a regular basis even if their initial attempts proved > problematic, including myself. Again I quote Dr. Peat: # On the fly, again. I will try to think twice next time around. > " I have been interested in the subject of " milk intolerance " for a > long time, and have wondered why doctors in the US and England give > it so much attention, while the people who drink the most milk, in > the Samburu and Masai cultures, and the cultures of northern India, > don't seem to have the problem. I doubt that this is a matter of > genetic differences; for example this person: " I was recently > diagnosed with lactose intolerance and so i had to eliminated milk > and milk products from my diet. I live in the USA. However, on a > recent trip to India, I had milk and all possible milk products > there and it did not affect me at all! Has anyone else experienced > this? Or does anyone have a possible explanation? " " # Hey, are you testing me? This is a repetition. I saw it from the first three words. This was unfair! > This is no legendary search for some mythical fountain of youth. It is > real in the here and now, with real people, like myself, really enjoying > dairy *without* the problems that the " dairy is dangerous " /paleo crowd > tell us about all the time. # , I am not paleo (I really don't know what I am in terms of nutrition) and I am not telling this all the time. Perhaps I made a mistake in posting those observations from a third party on milk. I am not telling people what they have to do. I was just bringing some info that I thought people didn't know about. I was wrong. > > > * I fail to see the false dichotomy, but you know better than I, so I > > will be reticent. > > There is no need to be such. To borrow your words, in plain english, if > I can find and drink milk that doesn't have a problem, after having > drunk milk that did, then clearly the issue with milk is not " inherent. " ## Yes, I agree. Have you found that milk, or is that simply a hypothesis? > > * Well, this is like and especially like Christie, isn't it? > > Who cares? > > and Christie can more than fend for themselves, but did you miss > what came after the " who cares " or does that not matter? > > If I couldn't transform the milk into a beneficial substance for me, then > I would care. Since I can, I don't. ## I didn't mean to sound offensive to either or Christie. Only your way of saying it reminded me of things they had said themselves. > > * Oh please, don't fatigue yourself [great pains]. > > I didn't fatigue myself. > > Another idiom perhaps you are missing because of the language barrier. > Great pains meaning I took time and effort to point out particular facts, > facts either you don't like or disagree with, which is fine. # Thank you for the clarification. Actually I was playing a little with the words. Great pains reminded of a great effort and - don't take it amiss - of childbirth pain. But when > you keep tromping out the " dairy is dangerous " mantra without any > interaction as to those facts, either to disprove, accept them, or say I > don't know, then I am compelled to point that out to you. ## I think tromping out means making a nasty sound, doesn't it? Do you really think my arguments here sound an inneffectual boring mantra? I am a little ashamed of myself. Summing up: I think dairy CAN be dangerous if you rely too much on it. It can be insidiously dangerous. I admit this is an acquired opinion rather than real experience with dairy. As I don't feel attracted to the idea of giving dairy an important place in my diet and life any more, I am not in the position to speak advisedly. This is my serious limitation. Again I was just bringing information to the group, thinking that someone might want to look further by themselves. If what I am bringing is unreal and maybe foolish, I will say no more. I don't want to be disruptive, really. Or touch inadvertently what is perhaps sacrosanct. > Its not personal though, and I hope you don't take it that way. > > > > >From > > > > all points of view, including the psychological, I agree it isn`t > > > > easy at all to replace dairy. Anyway, let me enlarge that list of > > > > foods that can possibly do - almonds, Brazil nuts, dried seaweed, > > raw > > > > cabbage, watercress, mung beans, dried figs and dates, grain > > germ, > > > > beetroot leaves, buckwheat, bone broth, etc. > > > > > > Just about everything in that list which you suggest as a > > replacement > > > for dairy, is " troublesome " like dairy. > > > > * Just about everything? I don't think so. > > *Almonds - require soaking before eating > *Brazil nuts - ditto > *dried seaweed - gotta make sure the source isn't polluted, possible > problem with B12 analogues > *raw cabbage - nice thyroid suppressing effect due to the goitrogens > among other things > *watercress - ? > *dried figs and dates - sourcing problems, steamed even though > supposedly raw, have they been sulphured, takes effort to find out and > even then you might not know for sure. > *grain germ - not sure what you are referring to > *buckwheat - needs to be soaked > *beetroot leaves - ? bet I can guess though > *bone broth - ever made any? this stuff just doesn't show up on the > kitchen table > > > > Here is a principle of WAP that you may not be aware of. All of > > Price's > > > primitives went *out of their way* to acquire certain foods, > > especially > > > foods from the sea (including shellfish), even groups who were > > inland, > > > and ate some form of raw animal foods. I don't recall *any* > > exceptions. > > > > > > Also, *all* of Price's primitives took pains to properly prepare > > foods > > > that were problematic in their natural state. I don't recall *any* > > > exceptions. > > > > > > It is a fact of life that obtaining and preparing wholesome foods > > is a > > > " troublesome " issue, whether you live in a land untouched by > > outsiders, > > > or were a merchant in Rome, or a " modern " in America with food > > stores on > > > nearly every corner. The " troubles " may differ, but the principle > > is the > > > same. > > > > * I see. I have nothing to add. You are teaching me. But a little > > like Galileo Galilei (though I am much smaller than him in all > > senses), I would repeat: E pur, si muove! > > I don't know. Have you ever read Nutrition and Physical Degeneration by > Dr. Price? # No, I haven't. I have read about him here and there, but no books. Does that disqualify me to belong here? Good night to you. José > > > ============================================================ > " So this is how freedom dies -- to thunderous applause. " > (Senator Padme Amidala in " Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith " ) > ============================================================ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 2005 Report Share Posted June 30, 2005 On 6/30/05, José Barbosa <jcmbarbosa52@...> wrote: > ** - Well, to start with, milk isn`t really something to be > drunk, but to be sucked. That is why females have nipples and babies > have no teeth. Maybe in an ideal world, in the utopian world of > instinctotherapy, we should eat only raw foods. But, while I don`t > intend to pass a value judgment on cooking, cooking has had a > decisive role in giving man the face he shows. We have been cooking > food from time immemorial, to use a worn-out expression. I don`t > think we have been ~drinking~ milk from a different species that long > and especially on such a regular basis. So it makes not much sense, > in my opinion, to plead for all raw food just because animals in > nature eat raw or because we shouldn`t be ~drinking~ milk likewise. > Shall we be mixing different things again? As far as I seen, newer research continues to extent the date backward at which humans are estimated to have begun drinking the milk of other species. While we may have not been drinking milk as long as we've been cooking, we've been doing it for an awful long time. But your first objection to 's analysis of your line of reasonsing was that there was no basis for comparison for the modernizations on 's list such as email, cooking, etc, whereas there was one for milk-- now that I have shown that to be wrong, you are changing it to the length of time we've been engaging in dairy versus cooking. In that case, with that specific line of reasoning, 's analysis is yet strengthened-- as we've been drinking milk for *much* longer than we've been using email, for example. Of course, the bottom line is that the nutritional value, risks, harms, and benefits of milk can be evaluated independent of the superfluous philosophizing. > ** I didn`t mean shellfish, but sardines. Did I really type > shellfish? If I did, that was a mistake. I am sorry. Maybe I'm remembering wrong. >You are right to > say that all of these foods (especially shrimp for some) can present > potential problems to health. As a matter of fact, not one single > category of food is exempt from dangers in our present world, but as > I see it, the `dangers` of milk are inherent in it, whereas the > dangers of say fish are circumstancial. The dangers of milk are entirely circumstancial, whether relative to the milk, the human consumer, or both. In some cases, the issue is a failure for the genetics to match up to the diet, and in others, it is the quality of the milk based on environment, diet, and breed of cow. > In other words, even raw > organic milk and dairy can pose problems to many many people. Those aren't the only variables. Grass-fed, environmental or dietary allergens, soil quality, species and breed of animal are all other variables and some would argue that it isn't entirely clear that those who can't tolerate milk actually have a problem with milk per se, even when that milk is raw and organic. But then there are populations like the Masai and the Kalenjuns (sp?) who quite clearly can thrive on extremely dairy-rich diets, beyond what we typically drink in our modern industrialized Western populations. Based on that, it is preposterous to call the harms of milk inherent in the drinking of milk itself. > From > all points of view, including the psychological, I agree it isn`t > easy at all to replace dairy. Anyway, let me enlarge that list of > foods that can possibly do - almonds, Brazil nuts, dried seaweed, raw > cabbage, watercress, mung beans, dried figs and dates, grain germ, > beetroot leaves, buckwheat, bone broth, etc. Why the cabbage raw? Raw cabbage contains goitrogens. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 2005 Report Share Posted June 30, 2005 On 6/30/05, <slethnobotanist@...> wrote: > > On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 16:35:02 -0000 > José Barbosa <jcmbarbosa52@...> wrote: > > > > > > > > Both humans and animals eat food, so eating cooked food : eating > > food > > > :: drinking milk after infancy : drinking milk. While email and > > > clothes have no basis for comparison, cooking food has a similar > > basis > > > for comparison to drinking milk after infancy, so to the extent that > > > your reasoning implies we should not drink milk as adults, it > > > similarly and necessarily implies that we should eat a 100% raw > > diet. > > > > > > > ** - Well, to start with, milk isn`t really something to be > > drunk, but to be sucked. That is why females have nipples and babies > > have no teeth. > > , > > You must have come up with this one on the fly, eh? I mean if I suck > something out don't I have to drink it down? Don't I have the option of > spitting it out? Which is to say sucking and drinking aren't necessarily > the same thing. At any rate, while I have other things to say about your > idea above, I will let parse it, if he so chooses, since you > directed it at him. Oh, I see a point you are subtly making that I left out: *I* have teeth, yet nevertheless... :-P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 2005 Report Share Posted June 30, 2005 On 6/30/05, yoginidd <hl@...> wrote: > Milk and dairy are controversial in terms of health. I have seen > vegan doctors use the same data as Dr. Masson about worldwide milk > consumption and osteoporosis linking, but other factors besides the > dairy could be involved. Or it could be that the quality of the dairy > has been changed - lower vitamin D for instance. People have been > consuming dairy for thousands of years, after all. So I don't know. > I do know that weight bearing exercise keeps the skeletal system dense > in the later years. So perhaps the lack of exercise we are > experiencing in the technological age is the reason we are seeing more > prevalence in this bone-reducing disease. Probably many factors are > involved. I would consider such a correlation to be useless without a second thought. Milk is basically being used as a marker for modernization-- not to mention wheat (and white) consumption, probably. I wonder how the osteoperosis rate of industrialized, modernized, milk-drinking nations compares to the osteoperosis rate of cattle-herding tribal groups. Or maybe e-mail causes osteoperosis. I've heard it is even correlated with telephone poles. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.