Re: milk & dairy

[Guest guest]

On 6/30/05, José Barbosa <jcmbarbosa52@...> wrote:

> * Hi:

What up, B?

> * I have often questioned myself as to whether I am entitled to be on

> this list or any other list for that matter.

Why? What's really good witchu?

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.

I'm feelin you, dawg. Fo' real. Or, should I say, fo' shizzle, ma' nizzle.

Sorry, perdon a mi. :-) Idioms vary across English, and some native

speakers might have difficulty understanding the phrases of other

native speakers. It's no big deal... you just figure the idioms out

as you go along. Of course you're entitled to be on the list! I

don't think anyone wants you to leave.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Hi:

Just a small but decisive correction: we don't speak Spanish in

Brazil. We speak Portuguese. We are, from this perspective, different

from all other Latin Americans.

Perdón a mi should read in Portuguese as: desculpe-me.

José

> > * Hi:

>

> What up, B?

>

> > * I have often questioned myself as to whether I am entitled to

be on

> > this list or any other list for that matter.

>

> Why? What's really good witchu?

>

> 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.

>

> I'm feelin you, dawg. Fo' real. Or, should I say, fo' shizzle,

ma' nizzle.

>

> Sorry, perdon a mi. :-) Idioms vary across English, and some

native

> speakers might have difficulty understanding the phrases of other

> native speakers. It's no big deal... you just figure the idioms out

> as you go along. Of course you're entitled to be on the list! I

> don't think anyone wants you to leave.

>

> Chris

[Guest guest]

> > >

> > > > 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

Hi:

I once read this somewhere (I can't remember the source): it was

observed that the body of aged people was often able to re-start the

production of lactase, perhaps indicating that aged toothless people

could thrive on milk again. Like babies.

José

[Guest guest]

>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

Finally decided to jump in on this thread after mostly catching up on a few

hundred emails. I'm so glad Suze said suckle instead of suck. It's a totally

different action using the tongue and gums. I am amazed that someone has seen

evidence of an adult animal obtaining milk by suckling as once weaned, humans

lose the ability to peform the sucling action fairly quickly. At least this is

my understanding. For this reason I suspect that it will be difficult for one's

husband to suckle at a woman's breast. Would imagine that it would be very

inefficient. Not saying they wouldn't get any milk, just not near as much as a

babe. Happy to be proven wrong though.

In a past message there was something metioned about teeth. Not sure if it was

being said that teeth hinder the process, or at least that dogs/cats push the

young away when they start teething. Just wanted to say that teeth don't hinder

at all. In fact some babies, albeit very very rarely, are boon with a few

teeth.

I have only had a few drops but find the taste to be sweet.

[Guest guest]

On 7/1/05, José Barbosa <jcmbarbosa52@...> wrote:

> Hi:

>

> Just a small but decisive correction: we don't speak Spanish in

> Brazil. We speak Portuguese. We are, from this perspective, different

> from all other Latin Americans.

>

> Perdón a mi should read in Portuguese as: desculpe-me.

Thanks... I knew that (actually, I knew you spoke Portuguese, and knew

Brazilians speak it, but didn't know you were from Brazil), but the

truth is I don't know Portuguese, so I thought I'd just cross my

fingers and hope it was one of the phrases that would end up the same,

since, from what I've seen, a good amount of the languages overlap.

I didn't work... but I see you know some Spanish anyway! (not surprising.)

Desculpe-me.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Oh, I also wanted to say, , that despite any problems with

iodiomatic usage, you have an impressive mastery of proper english. I

hope some day I can master a foreign language the way you've mastered

english.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> 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.

Of course, puppies and kittens are infamous for having

extraordinarily sharp teeth. ;-)

I imagine that if calves' teeth were as sharp as puppies' and

kittens' teeth, their moms would quickly wean them, too.

> 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.

No, it didn't appear that way at all.

> Probably she will not give it out of her free

> will.

She didn't seem to mind.

> Unless there is some sexual connotation here?

I don't think so. There is none of the usual contact (no mounting,

no resting of head on cow's back, the cow didn't appear to

be " bulling " , etc.).

> 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 think it's a matter of the " suckler " having a compatible smell.

Unless the cow is extraordinarily willing to be sucked.

I'm thinking of the fact that you can get a cow to " adopt " an orphan

calf by putting some of the wet cow's milk on the calf. Once it

smells like " self " , then the cow is willing to accept it.

> I can`t imagine humans doing

> that to each other for that matter.

>

> Carlo

Oh, I've heard tell of such things.

[Guest guest]

> Oh, I also wanted to say, , that despite any problems with

> iodiomatic usage, you have an impressive mastery of proper english. I

> hope some day I can master a foreign language the way you've mastered

> english.

>

> Chris

Hello Chris!

Perhaps I am the first Brazilian that you have " met " . Since my given

name is Portuguese, the pronunciation is different from Spanish. We say

almost like English ph, but without the D-sound of the J, and with

stress on " se " . In Spanish, you know, it sounds like " Hosse " .

Thanks for your assessment of my [broken] English. Really, it is no big

deal. There are many many gaps in my knowledge of English. Actually,

one " hidden " reason for me to be here is to practise writing English.

Finally, I want to say a couple of things about our about-to-end [?]

debate about milk and dairy.

a) That list of foods was meant to indicate foods that contain calcium,

in case you don't want to eat dairy. I was translating it from French

[the source is Jacques Lanore] and may have made mistakes. He

mentions " chou " and " chou " is generally translated as " cabbage " . It

could be kale, but I am not sure. I have always known that cabbage

juice is a powerful healing substance, useful for ulcers and the like.

Maybe it is problematic when eaten raw, it is perhaps too fibrous, but

I suppose that cooked cabbage has little value. If there are " poisons "

in raw cabbage? Well, it is possible. That I never heard about this

doesn't mean that raw cabbage is innocuous. He also mentions " cresson " ,

which is rendered by watercress. Watercress is very common here.

And " sarrasin " , which is buckwheat, and " germe d'orge " , which is barley

germ. Masson, on the other hand, says that much of the calcium

in in dairy is wasted through the faeces, that is, not correctly

absorbed by the body. I don't know if he is right or not.

I am aware that there are traditional peoples (Masai, Tibetans,

Lapps, etc) that use a lot of dairy and are healthy. So it is not my

intention to set milk and dairy in the pillory. But I am also aware

that these people lead very different lifestyles and use a kind of milk

that probably is not to easily found anywhere in our countries. And

perhaps they usually use it very fresh and fermented. I think that if

we were able to replicate all those conditions, then milk and dairy

would be ok. Since we can't, I think it is better (but I may be wrong

again) not to turn milk and dairy into a staple food, but use them

rather as a condiment or an enhancer, if you prefer.

I am sorry if I have said anything offensive or inappropriate before.

Desculpe-me.

José

[Guest guest]

On 7/1/05, José Barbosa <jcmbarbosa52@...> wrote:

> Hello Chris!

Hi!

> Perhaps I am the first Brazilian that you have " met " .

True. I have a friend who has some Brazilian friends but I haven't met them.

> Since my given

> name is Portuguese, the pronunciation is different from Spanish. We say

> almost like English ph, but without the D-sound of the J, and with

> stress on " se " .

So the J is like the French J then?

> In Spanish, you know, it sounds like " Hosse " .

Actually, there's a lot of different pronunciations of j, ll, and y in

Spanish-- I'm not sure of all the rules, so maybe is pronounced

consistently, as I've never heard it pronounced otherwise, but I had a

few students before, one of whom was named " Jesenia, " which was

pronounced " Yesenia, " another of whom had a name both spelled and

pronounced " Yesenia, " and I think there was also someone who spelled

their name " Yesenia " but was pronounced more like " Jesenia. " I would

think someone who pronounced the " J " in " Jesenia " as an English " Y "

would do the same for the " J " in , but for all I know the

following vowel might affect it. Spanish seems to have wide variation

of pronunciation even among people from the same area-- Puerto Rico,

for example. I only know it a little.

> a) That list of foods was meant to indicate foods that contain calcium,

> in case you don't want to eat dairy. I was translating it from French

> [the source is Jacques Lanore] and may have made mistakes. He

> mentions " chou " and " chou " is generally translated as " cabbage " . It

> could be kale, but I am not sure. I have always known that cabbage

> juice is a powerful healing substance, useful for ulcers and the like.

> Maybe it is problematic when eaten raw, it is perhaps too fibrous, but

> I suppose that cooked cabbage has little value. If there are " poisons "

> in raw cabbage? Well, it is possible. That I never heard about this

> doesn't mean that raw cabbage is innocuous.

There are goitrogens, which depress the thyroid and can cause goiter,

but I think they are broken down by fermentation in addition to

cooking.

> He also mentions " cresson " ,

> which is rendered by watercress. Watercress is very common here.

> And " sarrasin " , which is buckwheat, and " germe d'orge " , which is barley

> germ. Masson, on the other hand, says that much of the calcium

> in in dairy is wasted through the faeces, that is, not correctly

> absorbed by the body. I don't know if he is right or not.

I would suspect that to be true in someone who couldn't digest the dairy only.

> I am aware that there are traditional peoples (Masai, Tibetans,

> Lapps, etc) that use a lot of dairy and are healthy. So it is not my

> intention to set milk and dairy in the pillory. But I am also aware

> that these people lead very different lifestyles and use a kind of milk

> that probably is not to easily found anywhere in our countries. And

> perhaps they usually use it very fresh and fermented. I think that if

> we were able to replicate all those conditions, then milk and dairy

> would be ok. Since we can't, I think it is better (but I may be wrong

> again) not to turn milk and dairy into a staple food, but use them

> rather as a condiment or an enhancer, if you prefer.

Why do you say we can't reproduce those conditions?

> I am sorry if I have said anything offensive or inappropriate before.

> Desculpe-me.

You haven't.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> > 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.

>

> Of course, puppies and kittens are infamous for having

> extraordinarily sharp teeth. ;-)

>

> I imagine that if calves' teeth were as sharp as puppies' and

> kittens' teeth, their moms would quickly wean them, too.

>

>

> > 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.

>

> No, it didn't appear that way at all.

>

> > Probably she will not give it out of her free

> > will.

>

> She didn't seem to mind.

>

> > Unless there is some sexual connotation here?

>

> I don't think so. There is none of the usual contact (no mounting,

> no resting of head on cow's back, the cow didn't appear to

> be " bulling " , etc.).

>

> > 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 think it's a matter of the " suckler " having a compatible smell.

> Unless the cow is extraordinarily willing to be sucked.

>

> I'm thinking of the fact that you can get a cow to " adopt " an

orphan

> calf by putting some of the wet cow's milk on the calf. Once it

> smells like " self " , then the cow is willing to accept it.

>

> > I can`t imagine humans doing

> > that to each other for that matter.

> >

> > Carlo

>

> Oh, I've heard tell of such things.

>

>

:

Very very interesting. You were able to cleverly address and refute

all my questions and doubts. Thank you for this short lecture. I

think I must review many of my ideas about the subject. It seems

that, only in theory, milk is for infants and the toothless. Do you

know how often these milk appropriations happen? Also, maybe the

point of the milk coming from a species (ruminants) and being used by

another (humans) is not that relevant. Do you know if different

species (in nature) use milk from one another, for instance, cows X

mares, goats X sheep, etc?

All of this tells us a lot: animals are less conditioned than it is

normally thought. Still, I must see milk and dairy, as I said in a

previous post, with a certain reservation, given our conditions of

living, and the ways milk is produced and handled.

On the one hand, we should maybe use raw milk, because raw milk

contains it all. In making dairy (especially cheese), a more or less

large part of the whey is discarded, so the result is not strictly

speaking a wholesome product. On the other hand, it seems that raw

milk is less tolerated than fermented dairy by most people. I think

that yoghurt also rejects part of the whey, but I am not sure about

kefir.

How many contradictions around milk! No wonder, it arouses so much

discussion and polemics.

José

[Guest guest]

>

> So the J is like the French J then?

## That is right.

>

> Actually, there's a lot of different pronunciations of j, ll, and y

in

> Spanish-- I'm not sure of all the rules, so maybe is pronounced

> consistently, as I've never heard it pronounced otherwise, but I

had a

> few students before, one of whom was named " Jesenia, " which was

> pronounced " Yesenia, " another of whom had a name both spelled and

> pronounced " Yesenia, " and I think there was also someone who spelled

> their name " Yesenia " but was pronounced more like " Jesenia. " I

would

> think someone who pronounced the " J " in " Jesenia " as an English " Y "

> would do the same for the " J " in , but for all I know the

> following vowel might affect it. Spanish seems to have wide

variation

> of pronunciation even among people from the same area-- Puerto Rico,

> for example. I only know it a little.

## Well, as far as I know, J in Spanish always sounds like H in

English. At least this holds true for Spain, Chile and Argentina, the

three Spanish-speaking countries I have been to. I can't say anything

about the others, but I should think it is the same everywhere.

> There are goitrogens, which depress the thyroid and can cause

goiter,

> but I think they are broken down by fermentation in addition to

> cooking.

# Do you know if cabbage juice contains goitrogens?

> > Masson, on the other hand, says that much of the calcium

> > in in dairy is wasted through the faeces, that is, not correctly

> > absorbed by the body. I don't know if he is right or not.

>

> I would suspect that to be true in someone who couldn't digest the

dairy only.

# Could be. I would like to check this out with him.

> >I think that if

> > we were able to replicate all those conditions, then milk and

dairy

> > would be ok. Since we can't, I think it is better (but I may be

wrong

> > again) not to turn milk and dairy into a staple food, but use

them

> > rather as a condiment or an enhancer, if you prefer.

>

> Why do you say we can't reproduce those conditions?

# Well, maybe it is possible, if there is a shift in conscience.

> > I am sorry if I have said anything offensive or inappropriate

before.

> > Desculpe-me.

>

> You haven't.

# I am relieved.

JC

> Chris

[Guest guest]

Just wanted to add my opinion I dont see what teeth have to do

with anything, as most Human children I know nurse a minimum of 3

years & all have a full mouth of teeth long before weaning. I

certainly havent seen it hinder the process with any of them!

--- In , " " <harringtonwa@b...>

wrote:

> >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

>

> Finally decided to jump in on this thread after mostly catching up

on a few hundred emails. I'm so glad Suze said suckle instead of

suck. It's a totally different action using the tongue and gums. I

am amazed that someone has seen evidence of an adult animal

obtaining milk by suckling as once weaned, humans lose the ability

to peform the sucling action fairly quickly. At least this is my

understanding. For this reason I suspect that it will be difficult

for one's husband to suckle at a woman's breast. Would imagine that

it would be very inefficient. Not saying they wouldn't get any

milk, just not near as much as a babe. Happy to be proven wrong

though.

>

> In a past message there was something metioned about teeth. Not

sure if it was being said that teeth hinder the process, or at least

that dogs/cats push the young away when they start teething. Just

wanted to say that teeth don't hinder at all. In fact some babies,

albeit very very rarely, are boon with a few teeth.

>

> I have only had a few drops but find the taste to be sweet.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

:

A final [?] question has occurred to me. When the bull suckles or

sucks the milk from the cow's teats, does he do that because he is

experiencing some say calcium deficiency and the body sort of tells

him what to do? Is he thus acting instinctively? Or is the whole

process just for fun or variation? I don't know if I made myself

understood. Can you or anyone else answer?

José

> > 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.

>

> Of course, puppies and kittens are infamous for having

> extraordinarily sharp teeth. ;-)

>

> I imagine that if calves' teeth were as sharp as puppies' and

> kittens' teeth, their moms would quickly wean them, too.

>

>

> > 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.

>

> No, it didn't appear that way at all.

>

> > Probably she will not give it out of her free

> > will.

>

> She didn't seem to mind.

>

> > Unless there is some sexual connotation here?

>

> I don't think so. There is none of the usual contact (no mounting,

> no resting of head on cow's back, the cow didn't appear to

> be " bulling " , etc.).

>

> > 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 think it's a matter of the " suckler " having a compatible smell.

> Unless the cow is extraordinarily willing to be sucked.

>

> I'm thinking of the fact that you can get a cow to " adopt " an

orphan

> calf by putting some of the wet cow's milk on the calf. Once it

> smells like " self " , then the cow is willing to accept it.

>

> > I can`t imagine humans doing

> > that to each other for that matter.

> >

> > Carlo

>

> Oh, I've heard tell of such things.

>

>

[Guest guest]

>Is he thus acting instinctively? Or is the whole

>process just for fun or variation? I don't know if I made myself

>understood. Can you or anyone else answer?

>

>José

I can't say for bulls, but most animals never really outgrow

being " babies " . I've seen full-grown ravens still pestering

their moms to shove food down their gullets (the raven

form of " suckling " ). Humans retain their desire to " suck "

(or " suckle " as the case may be) but usually transfer it

to other objects, like cigarettes, at least in public!

It's really interesting in farm animals because in a

sense they never really grow up: they retain this infantile

attachment, only it's transferred onto the farmer. A

wild animal will typically fend for itself: but a farm

animal always acts like an infant, making noises for

food and expecting it to come. There is said to be a

hormone for " infantileness " which has been bred

into " domestic " animals, so they retain the hormone

longer (thus making them easier to keep). I'd expect

full grown domestic bulls have more of it than their

wild counterparts.

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:U4rVU1dlBx8J:www.mmilani.com/hollistic_animal\

_behavior.html+infantile+characteristics+hormone+domestic & hl=en & client=firefox-a

By the tenth generation, 18% of the foxes were eager to establish human contact,

vocalized to attract attention, and sniffed and licked experimenters like pet

dogs. By 1999, 70-80% of the foxes displayed this behavior. The new foxes look

markedly different from their wild counterparts, too. The exhibited floppy ears,

monomorphism (males and females look alike), and the solid or piebald coat

colors common to domestic animals. An increase in under- and overbites suggests

that the shorter muzzles, more prominent eyes, and smaller craniums and brains

found in other domestic animals and birds loom in the offing. In short, the

adult domestic foxes retained the physical characteristics of the young, a

condition known as neotony or pedomorphosis. Consequently, we can say that

domestication freezes the animal in a behaviorally and morphologically immature

state.

Interestingly, modern humans are more like

domestic animals, in terms of infantile characteristics,

than our ancestors were. We are " less wild " , less

able to fend for ourselves. So maybe that means

we retain the desire for suckling longer too!

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

Interesting question.

I don't know why, actually. I don't think it happens often.

Perhaps it's due to a perceived nutrient lack that instinct tells him

can be fulfilled by milk.

I understand that cattle will choose to eat particular " weeds " when

they feel specific nutrient defiencies. Or cats and dogs will eat

grass if their stomach is upset, or just because they feel like it.

I have seen an indoor cat search out lush fescue to " graze " every

time it leaves the house!

Or maybe it's " monkey see-monkey do " . Like, they noticed the calves

sucking, and forgot he was no longer a calf.

Or maybe it's a " comfort food " .

I imagine most people have sufficient pasture to segregate their

bulls from their cows and calves. Otherwise, more people would

report having witnessed the behavior.

Most cattlemen would probably only allow bulls to hang around their

cows if they wanted them to breed the cows. Cows that are not bred

are normally dry.

Temple Grandin says that autistic humans are similar to cattle, and

vice versa. If someone could discuss food cravings in autistic

humans, perhaps they would have insight into why adult bulls might

suckle cows???

> :

>

> A final [?] question has occurred to me. When the bull suckles or

> sucks the milk from the cow's teats, does he do that because he is

> experiencing some say calcium deficiency and the body sort of tells

> him what to do? Is he thus acting instinctively? Or is the whole

> process just for fun or variation? I don't know if I made myself

> understood. Can you or anyone else answer?

>

> José

[Guest guest]

> :

>

> Very very interesting. You were able to cleverly address and refute

> all my questions and doubts. Thank you for this short lecture. I

> think I must review many of my ideas about the subject. It seems

> that, only in theory, milk is for infants and the toothless.

Just a theory, IMHO. :-D I can't buy it. (That's another American

figure of speech. It means " I can't accept it. " )

> Do you

> know how often these milk appropriations happen?

I suspect it's not all that common, or more people might have

observed it. Of course, as I mention in another post, most cattlemen

(and women) probably keep their bulls separated from their cows

unless they want the bulls to breed the cows. And the cows with a

calf at side (actively suckling) generally have too recently calved

to consider allowing them to be exposed to bulls. In other words,

you don't want to breed them too soon after the previous calving.

It's like Dr. Price observed with humans: 3 years between children

is a commonly accepted spacing. Otherwise, the mother is unable to

reestablish her physical stores and properly nourish another

pregnancy.

Of course, cattlemen who have a cow-calf operation generally want

each cow to produce a calf each year. So they normally wean the

calves off the cows with sufficient time to allow the cow to build

her body condition back up. I think weaning at 6 months is typical,

but it probably varies a lot, depending on the rancher and the

conditions. Of course, dairy calves are weaned really quickly, so

the cow can be put back into milk production for the dairy.

> Also, maybe the

> point of the milk coming from a species (ruminants) and being used

by

> another (humans) is not that relevant. Do you know if different

> species (in nature) use milk from one another, for instance, cows X

> mares, goats X sheep, etc?

Since the fact that a mother tends not to accept a suckler that does

not smell like " self " , I would expect that it would be necessary for

a human to intervene to establish a cross-species suckling

relationship. I think it is done in some circumstances.

>

> All of this tells us a lot: animals are less conditioned than it is

> normally thought. Still, I must see milk and dairy, as I said in a

> previous post, with a certain reservation, given our conditions of

> living, and the ways milk is produced and handled.

I think that a person can make himself ill by consuming food that

they believe is not healthy. That's one reason I am actually a bit

reluctant to proclaim that certain foods are " always " unhealthy.

But I come pretty close to saying that about soy! ;-) And

hydrogenated fats/oils!

>

> On the one hand, we should maybe use raw milk, because raw milk

> contains it all. In making dairy (especially cheese), a more or

less

> large part of the whey is discarded, so the result is not strictly

> speaking a wholesome product. On the other hand, it seems that raw

> milk is less tolerated than fermented dairy by most people. I think

> that yoghurt also rejects part of the whey, but I am not sure about

> kefir.

I think that's so. Unprocessed, healthy milk is going to carry more

health-giving properties than industrially processed milk. Even

whole milk has proven more healthful to me than 2% or skim milk.

>

> How many contradictions around milk! No wonder, it arouses so much

> discussion and polemics.

You are right about that!

[Guest guest]

Did I say it was my final/last question?

Perhaps, as we can glean from Heidi's post, animals in the wild don't

do those things. So, it seems it would be correct to say that once

weaned, a (wild) beast will not have milk again. So here are we again

harping on the same string.

Another question is: why do we need dairy? Can it be for the protein?

But if you are eating meat, fish and eggs, you are already getting

high-quality protein, some even say superior to dairy's protein, and

without the casein-problem. Could it be then for the calcium? But

isn't there an excessive amount of calcium in dairy? Could it be for

the taste and to make our diets more varied? In this case, I am for

dairy, but I am afraid only in this case.

By the way, in macrobiotics circles I often heard that the

consumption of milk and dairy made us (remain) infantile. But then

again it is said the macrobiotics people were also saying a lot of

bullshit.

JC

> > :

> >

> > A final [?] question has occurred to me. When the bull suckles or

> > sucks the milk from the cow's teats, does he do that because he

is

> > experiencing some say calcium deficiency and the body sort of

tells

> > him what to do? Is he thus acting instinctively? Or is the whole

> > process just for fun or variation? I don't know if I made myself

> > understood. Can you or anyone else answer?

> >

> > José

[Guest guest]

> Did I say it was my final/last question?

>

> Perhaps, as we can glean from Heidi's post, animals in the wild

don't

> do those things. So, it seems it would be correct to say that once

> weaned, a (wild) beast will not have milk again. So here are we

again

> harping on the same string.

How many wild animals do you know of that stay with their mothers for

their entire lives?

>

> Another question is: why do we need dairy? Can it be for the

protein?

> But if you are eating meat, fish and eggs, you are already getting

> high-quality protein, some even say superior to dairy's protein,

and

> without the casein-problem. Could it be then for the calcium? But

> isn't there an excessive amount of calcium in dairy? Could it be

for

> the taste and to make our diets more varied? In this case, I am for

> dairy, but I am afraid only in this case.

IMHO, it's greatest value is in the butterfat, then in the minerals,

and in the fact that the two are combined. The protein is valuable,

too, but I think the butterfat is the most important part.

I'm not sure how a bull would get fat, except in the form of

vegetable oils in the grass.

>

> By the way, in macrobiotics circles I often heard that the

> consumption of milk and dairy made us (remain) infantile. But then

> again it is said the macrobiotics people were also saying a lot of

> bullshit.

>

> JC

I have a lot of trouble accepting macrobiotics. People who follow

their teachings seem to have more trouble staying healthy than people

who eat a traditional, lard- and butter-laden diet!

It seems simplistic and naive.

[Guest guest]

On 7/1/05, José Barbosa <jcmbarbosa52@...> wrote:

> Another question is: why do we need dairy? Can it be for the protein?

> But if you are eating meat, fish and eggs, you are already getting

> high-quality protein, some even say superior to dairy's protein, and

> without the casein-problem. Could it be then for the calcium? But

> isn't there an excessive amount of calcium in dairy? Could it be for

> the taste and to make our diets more varied? In this case, I am for

> dairy, but I am afraid only in this case.

Dr. Ray Peat is of the opinion that muscle meats contain an excessive

amount of amino acids that depress the thyroid, and that most

vegetable protein is useless, so he recommends a quart a milk a day

plus some cheese. However, he also says that if one were to take a

" whole animal " approach and include the skin, bones, and organs in

one's diet, that the animal protein would be of the right balance. So

it would not be imperative to use dairy to get the right protein, but

muscle meat alone would be inferior to muscle meat and dairy, assuming

one is digesting the dairy properly.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 21:42:16 -0000

José Barbosa <jcmbarbosa52@...> wrote:

> Another question is: why do we need dairy? Can it be for the protein?

> But if you are eating meat, fish and eggs, you are already getting

> high-quality protein, some even say superior to dairy's protein, and

> without the casein-problem. Could it be then for the calcium? But

> isn't there an excessive amount of calcium in dairy? Could it be for

> the taste and to make our diets more varied? In this case, I am for

> dairy, but I am afraid only in this case.

>

Well if we eat the *whole* animal we don't the fish or eggs either. And

probably not much of the muscle meat.

Unfortunately that is " troublesome " for most of us :-)

============================================================

" So this is how freedom dies -- to thunderous applause. "

(Senator Padme Amidala in " Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith " )

============================================================

[Guest guest]

José, thanks for sharing the Masson translation with us. Sadly, it

brings nothing new to the table for me and suffers from typical

exaggerated anti-milk propaganda. I find his none of his arguments to

be accurately presented and anybody who fails to explicitly deal with

quality-of-source issues and individual physiological variation simply

cannot be taken seriously. It's the same old same old.

Allow me to point out that the matter of osteoporosis in certain

industrialized countries, mainly Scandanavian, has also been explained

by the high intake of natural (cod liver) and/or synthetic (fortified

dairy) retinol in those countries. There are mechanisms identifying

the interaction of retinol and osteoclasts that make this explanation

the most likely I've encountered. When people like Masson blithely

discuss relationships between milk and bone health it automatically

discounts their credibility in my view. It is frankly absurd to even

mention the topic when debating the merits of milk because it presumes

a special role of calcium intake in bone health, which any reasonably

knowledgeable person doesn't believe now that the deficiencies in vit

D and various minerals like magnesium are widely known to be the

primary issues in practice. The relevance of calcium to milk is a

classic red herring of nutritional discourse.

As far as the philosophical sport of speculating on milk's

" naturalness " for weaned humans, I have to turn the tables on the

perspectives offered so far. Quite simply, if milk is so unbelievably

fantastic for very young mammals, which it transparently is, then it

would require an implausibly dramatic contrast in nutritional needs

and possibilities for younger and older mammals for it to suddenly

become a poor food at some age. While there are twists relating to

specific differences in chemistry between the milks of different

species that make interspecies milk compatability a subtle matter, the

basic nature of milk heavily favors its potential as a great food for

any mammal of any age. The fact that non-human animals in the wild

don't use milk as a post-weaning food can be easily accounted for in

terms of a technological gap between humans and other animals, without

resorting to speculation about the nutritional implications of this

behavioral gap. This technological gap is fairly arbitrary and

independent of the chemistry of food and its interaction with

mammalian digestive physiology. It is no different than humankind's

unique consumption of brains and bone marrow because of the lucky

technological capacity to crack open skulls and bones. Surely brains

and bone marrow would be a fabulous food for many other species who

simply lack thumbs, a certain type of nervous system, etc.

José, I would like to offer my support for many of your

conceptualizations in the thread, such as the distinction between

intrinisic and extrinisc/circumstantial problems with a given food,

which tried to fruitlessly conflate. But you have not offered

anything resembling a convincing refutation of the position many of us

hold that milk is in many cases an outstanding and problem-free food.

Once you factor for individual variation in lactose digestion, casein

types, and casein digestion, it's simply a matter of having good soil

and good breeds of dairy animals. There is nothing so elusive or

unrealistic about getting a small pasture, nurturing the soil, having

a few sheep, goats, etc and enjoying the milk fresh or fermented. Most

of us in this email group could turn around tomorrow and shift our

lifestyles to live this way if we chose to. This is one of the best

possible dietary scenarios for the afore-specified subset of humans. I

challenge you to identify one negative aspect of this scenario.

Also, once again, I'm dazzled by your brilliant prose and I greet your

protestations of English limitations as little more than coy

affectation.

The list of non-milk calcium sources you cite from Masson is pretty

silly. The issues there are far more subtle than such a naive and

factually impoverished list would suggest, and have been hashed many

times on this list. For anyone interested in this topic, some Onibasu

searching would be rewarding. In any case, we all know calcium is

very easy to get without milk and that many cultures don't consume

milk, etc.

Indeed, raw cabbage or any raw brassica is a problematic food because

of the goitrogens others have mentioned, but this is easily solved by

cooking or fermentation. The benefits of raw cabbage juice may far

outweight this minor issue in some medicinal situations, though, if

the many anecdotes about this food are to be trusted; it's not as if

one gets sick from goitrogens! It may be possible to compensate for

their effect through other dietary factors in some cases, like iodine

intake. Yes, the goitrogens are also in raw cabbage juice. No,

cooked cabbage is not a worthless food by any stretch! Kale,

certainly a potential alternative translation to cabbage in some

cases, is widely celebrated as a great calcium source, and this is

fairly independent of how it's prepared as far as I know.

It is frankly hilarious to hear someone suggest that the calcium from

milk has relatively poor bioavailability! This Masson guy is a chip

off the old anti-milk block. Think about it. It's *milk*. Milk is a

substance that specifically evolved to be an efficiently and

powerfully nutritious substance for mammals, and contains various

enzymes and other substances that abet nutrient utilization! The

enzymes that support calcium absorption also consitute a reasonable

example of the significance of the raw/cooked distinction in

considering the status of milk as a human food. Further, there are

ample studies of the calcium bioavailability for milk and the basic

conclusion I've reached is that it's about the most efficient source

of calcium for humans, but that small fish and some greens are roughly

equal in their calcium bioavailability. The upper range for calcium

absorption I've seen is around 30-40%, while foods like almonds and

spinach are below 5% because of oxalic acid, etc. As a basic rule of

thumb, animal foods tend to have greater nutrient bioavailability than

plant foods.

Does milk have too much calcium? I believe this is a non-issue

because in cultures where calcium is primarily obtained through small

fish, shrimp, etc, the calcium intake is much higher than dairy

cultures. Assuming you're getting enough of the other minerals to

satisfy certain ratios, it's my impression that moderately excessive

calcium is harmless. Deficiencies in other minerals is the real

issue, and quite common in some modern societies.

[José] Another question is: why do we need dairy?

[MikeP] To echo so many others earlier in this thread, nobody has ever

suggested here that anybody needs dairy!!!! I'm surprised you would

persist with such a ill-founded question! Nobody needs dairy, but for

a certain segment of the human population there is nothing

intrinsically problematic about it and it's one of the best possible

foods, so great that indeed one could probably thrive on a diet of

over 90% milk!

For myself, I avidly consume kefir on a daily basis, usually made with

raw milk from 100% grass-fed Jersey cows on good pasture at nearby

farms, and occasionally from other breeds of cows, cows that get

around 5% grain, goats, and sheep. I also often drink a little of the

fresh milk while it's still warm out of the animal and sometimes even

after it's been refrigerated. When the pasture is in its prime during

the spring and fall it's not uncommon for my diet to become more than

50% milk. I've seen countless texts relating to the milk controversy

and it suffices to say my practices reflect my conclusions about the

status of milk as a human food. I never consume cooked/pasteurized

milk, but at the same time I'm not convinced at all that there's

anything bad about it, just that it's less good.

José, on the matter of your name's Portugese pronunciation, instead of

citing French or any roundabout explanations in terms of the affricate

in " judge " , it would be much easier to simply cite the common English

words that contain this sound, like " genre " , " measure " , " leisure " ,

seizure " , " fusion " , etc! It may be a fairly rare phoneme in English,

but nobody could fail to grasp it given such examples!

Mike

SE Pennsylvania

The best way to predict the future is to invent it. --Alan Kay

[Guest guest]

>

> > Another question is: why do we need dairy? Can it be for the

protein?

> > But if you are eating meat, fish and eggs, you are already

getting

> > high-quality protein, some even say superior to dairy's protein,

and

> > without the casein-problem. Could it be then for the calcium? But

> > isn't there an excessive amount of calcium in dairy? Could it be

for

> > the taste and to make our diets more varied? In this case, I am

for

> > dairy, but I am afraid only in this case.

> >

>

> Well if we eat the *whole* animal we don't the fish or eggs either.

And

> probably not much of the muscle meat.

>

> Unfortunately that is " troublesome " for most of us :-)

>

>

I don't know... Some people might argue with you that is is possible

to eat the whole animal. Maybe not at once, depending on its size,

but gradually, I suppose.

My late dog, whenever he caught hold of a hen, namely without my

permission, would eat, swallow to be more precise the whole of it,

even some feathers, and then would fast for two to three days. I am

afraid we can't emulate dogs. At least we don't have those teeth and

maybe not all those powerful acids in our stomach.

Still, I think that if we eat organ meats and muscle meats as well,

adequately prepared to one's tastes and habits, some deep sea fish,

veggies and fruit (and a little starch, for those who want it), we

will be getting all we need, without the possible (let me

stress " possible " ) inconveniences of dairy. You know the old adage:

there is no smoke without a fire. In other terms, as someone said

here before, dairy is important, but not essential to life. I have

yet to understand why we need it or why we couldn't live without it.

Unless we are thinking of mother's milk to babies. Or maybe in the

case you are a true vegetarian and all the protein you need you get

from dairy...

Really, I am afraid I will become a persona non grata on this list

for not sharing with many of you a brighter view on milk and dairy.

Please don't look down on me. It is all I can say for the moment.

José

> ============================================================

> " So this is how freedom dies -- to thunderous applause. "

> (Senator Padme Amidala in " Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the

Sith " )

> ============================================================

[Guest guest]

>> 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. <<

Maybe YOU do. But I've never experienced anything like what you're talking

about. It's really erroneous to extrapolate from yourself to the rest

of the

human race.

Christie

Caber Feidh ish Deerhounds

Holistically Raising Our Dogs Since 1986

http://www.caberfeidh.com

http://doggedblog.com

[Guest guest]

Am I extrapolating? I have heard many people tell the same story.

JC

> >> 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. <<

>

> Maybe YOU do. But I've never experienced anything like what you're

talking

> about. It's really erroneous to extrapolate from yourself to the rest

> of the

> human race.

>

> Christie

> Caber Feidh ish Deerhounds

> Holistically Raising Our Dogs Since 1986

> http://www.caberfeidh.com

> http://doggedblog.com

[Guest guest]

Oh, Anton:

It sounded so funny, not to say ironical, that you first thanked me

for having posted Masson only to discredit everything afterwards.

> José, thanks for sharing the Masson translation with us. Sadly, it

> brings nothing new to the table for me and suffers from typical

> exaggerated anti-milk propaganda. I find his none of his arguments

to

> be accurately presented and anybody who fails to explicitly deal

with

> quality-of-source issues and individual physiological variation

simply

> cannot be taken seriously. It's the same old same old.

Some years ago, Masson was in favour of dairy, but in later years he

gradually changed his position. I think he received negative feedback

from his patients. Also he was possibly influenced by

instinctotherapy. Actually he doesn't ban dairy, he advises caution.

> Allow me to point out that the matter of osteoporosis in certain

> industrialized countries, mainly Scandanavian, has also been

explained

> by the high intake of natural (cod liver) and/or synthetic

(fortified

> dairy) retinol in those countries. There are mechanisms identifying

> the interaction of retinol and osteoclasts that make this

explanation

> the most likely I've encountered. When people like Masson blithely

> discuss relationships between milk and bone health it automatically

> discounts their credibility in my view. It is frankly absurd to even

> mention the topic when debating the merits of milk because it

presumes

> a special role of calcium intake in bone health, which any

reasonably

> knowledgeable person doesn't believe now that the deficiencies in

vit

> D and various minerals like magnesium are widely known to be the

> primary issues in practice. The relevance of calcium to milk is a

> classic red herring of nutritional discourse.

If all you are saying is true, then I have been a fool for all these

years. Shall I yield my palm?

> As far as the philosophical sport of speculating on milk's

> " naturalness " for weaned humans, I have to turn the tables on the

> perspectives offered so far. Quite simply, if milk is so

unbelievably

> fantastic for very young mammals, which it transparently is, then it

> would require an implausibly dramatic contrast in nutritional needs

> and possibilities for younger and older mammals for it to suddenly

> become a poor food at some age. While there are twists relating to

> specific differences in chemistry between the milks of different

> species that make interspecies milk compatability a subtle matter,

the

> basic nature of milk heavily favors its potential as a great food

for

> any mammal of any age. The fact that non-human animals in the wild

> don't use milk as a post-weaning food can be easily accounted for in

> terms of a technological gap between humans and other animals,

without

> resorting to speculation about the nutritional implications of this

> behavioral gap. This technological gap is fairly arbitrary and

> independent of the chemistry of food and its interaction with

> mammalian digestive physiology. It is no different than humankind's

> unique consumption of brains and bone marrow because of the lucky

> technological capacity to crack open skulls and bones. Surely brains

> and bone marrow would be a fabulous food for many other species who

> simply lack thumbs, a certain type of nervous system, etc.

I would like to know the origin of the word " milk " , to see all the

connections it has with other words. My dictionaries haven't helped

much. I see, however, that milk is very present in many mythologies

and cosmologies. One single example is the Milky Way. This is

therefore a very powerful word. So it is easy to understand how you

may be asking for a curse if you question it, let alone speak not so

well of it.

>

> José, I would like to offer my support for many of your

> conceptualizations in the thread, such as the distinction between

> intrinisic and extrinisc/circumstantial problems with a given food,

> which tried to fruitlessly conflate. But you have not

offered

> anything resembling a convincing refutation of the position many of

us

> hold that milk is in many cases an outstanding and problem-free

food.

> Once you factor for individual variation in lactose digestion,

casein

> types, and casein digestion, it's simply a matter of having good

soil

> and good breeds of dairy animals. There is nothing so elusive or

> unrealistic about getting a small pasture, nurturing the soil,

having

> a few sheep, goats, etc and enjoying the milk fresh or fermented.

Most

> of us in this email group could turn around tomorrow and shift our

> lifestyles to live this way if we chose to. This is one of the best

> possible dietary scenarios for the afore-specified subset of

humans. I

> challenge you to identify one negative aspect of this scenario.

, is it really that simple? Don't challenge me, please. Now it

is too late: I have already burned all my matches, one by one.

> Also, once again, I'm dazzled by your brilliant prose and I greet

your

> protestations of English limitations as little more than coy

> affectation.

No, it is not affectation. You must hear me speaking it.

> The list of non-milk calcium sources you cite from Masson is pretty

> silly. The issues there are far more subtle than such a naive and

> factually impoverished list would suggest, and have been hashed many

> times on this list. For anyone interested in this topic, some

Onibasu

> searching would be rewarding. In any case, we all know calcium is

> very easy to get without milk and that many cultures don't consume

> milk, etc.

The list doesn't come from Masson, but from another Frenchman.

> Indeed, raw cabbage or any raw brassica is a problematic food

because

> of the goitrogens others have mentioned, but this is easily solved

by

> cooking or fermentation. The benefits of raw cabbage juice may far

> outweight this minor issue in some medicinal situations, though, if

> the many anecdotes about this food are to be trusted; it's not as if

> one gets sick from goitrogens! It may be possible to compensate for

> their effect through other dietary factors in some cases, like

iodine

> intake. Yes, the goitrogens are also in raw cabbage juice. No,

> cooked cabbage is not a worthless food by any stretch! Kale,

> certainly a potential alternative translation to cabbage in some

> cases, is widely celebrated as a great calcium source, and this is

> fairly independent of how it's prepared as far as I know.

Please let e know about this. If I remember well, she was

eating raw broccoli. That might also be harmful.

> It is frankly hilarious to hear someone suggest that the calcium

from

> milk has relatively poor bioavailability! This Masson guy is a chip

> off the old anti-milk block. Think about it. It's *milk*. Milk is

a

> substance that specifically evolved to be an efficiently and

> powerfully nutritious substance for mammals, and contains various

> enzymes and other substances that abet nutrient utilization! The

> enzymes that support calcium absorption also consitute a reasonable

> example of the significance of the raw/cooked distinction in

> considering the status of milk as a human food. Further, there are

> ample studies of the calcium bioavailability for milk and the basic

> conclusion I've reached is that it's about the most efficient source

> of calcium for humans, but that small fish and some greens are

roughly

> equal in their calcium bioavailability. The upper range for calcium

> absorption I've seen is around 30-40%, while foods like almonds and

> spinach are below 5% because of oxalic acid, etc. As a basic rule of

> thumb, animal foods tend to have greater nutrient bioavailability

than

> plant foods.

I had never heard that before: chip off the old anti-milk block. I

hope it is not too pejorative. Maybe he is all wrong about milk and

dairy - I concede this to you, but he is brilliant elsewhere. He

wrote exhaustively about fruit, and I think that it is his strongest

point, so to say. But I have grown afraid of bringing in more of him

onto this list. He has proven rather unacceptable. And I don't want

to risk my reputation any further. Alors, c'est fini avec Masson.

> Does milk have too much calcium? I believe this is a non-issue

> because in cultures where calcium is primarily obtained through

small

> fish, shrimp, etc, the calcium intake is much higher than dairy

> cultures. Assuming you're getting enough of the other minerals to

> satisfy certain ratios, it's my impression that moderately excessive

> calcium is harmless. Deficiencies in other minerals is the real

> issue, and quite common in some modern societies.

I agree. And an excess of calories as well, whether you eat carbs or

not.

> [José] Another question is: why do we need dairy?

>

> [MikeP] To echo so many others earlier in this thread, nobody has

ever

> suggested here that anybody needs dairy!!!! I'm surprised you would

> persist with such a ill-founded question! Nobody needs dairy, but

for

> a certain segment of the human population there is nothing

> intrinsically problematic about it and it's one of the best possible

> foods, so great that indeed one could probably thrive on a diet of

> over 90% milk!

If nobody needs dairy, is this equivalent to saying it is

superfluous? I think it was who mentioned this word in relation

to philosophy. When I read his suggestion, I felt as if I had wasted

a large part of my life: much of my time and many of my conversations

have been spent with philosophy and poetry.

> For myself, I avidly consume kefir on a daily basis, usually made

with

> raw milk from 100% grass-fed Jersey cows on good pasture at nearby

> farms, and occasionally from other breeds of cows, cows that get

> around 5% grain, goats, and sheep. I also often drink a little of

the

> fresh milk while it's still warm out of the animal and sometimes

even

> after it's been refrigerated. When the pasture is in its prime

during

> the spring and fall it's not uncommon for my diet to become more

than

> 50% milk. I've seen countless texts relating to the milk controversy

> and it suffices to say my practices reflect my conclusions about the

> status of milk as a human food. I never consume cooked/pasteurized

> milk, but at the same time I'm not convinced at all that there's

> anything bad about it, just that it's less good.

It would be very difficult for me to get milk nearly as good as the

milk you usually drink.

> José, on the matter of your name's Portugese pronunciation, instead

of

> citing French or any roundabout explanations in terms of the

affricate

> in " judge " , it would be much easier to simply cite the common

English

> words that contain this sound, like " genre " , " measure " , " leisure " ,

> seizure " , " fusion " , etc! It may be a fairly rare phoneme in English,

> but nobody could fail to grasp it given such examples!

I knew that, . I could have used it, no doubt. By the way, it

seems that all those English words come from French.

Kindest regards,

José

> Mike

> SE Pennsylvania

>

> The best way to predict the future is to invent it. --Alan Kay