RE: Sally&#039;s Milk-Drinking Habits

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

----------------------------

“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

----------------------------

April 22, 2005

Suze-

>If only it were so then it would be a rare person indeed who couldn't

>tolerate raw milk (full of lactase). But alas, the main milk allergy is to

>casein :-(

Lactose intolerance is not an allergy, and regardless of what the actual

prevalence of casein allergies is, lactose intolerance is very, very common.

-

April 22, 2005

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 17:24:39 -0400

Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> Suze-

>

> >If only it were so then it would be a rare person indeed who couldn't

> >tolerate raw milk (full of lactase). But alas, the main milk allergy is to

> >casein :-(

>

> Lactose intolerance is not an allergy, and regardless of what the actual

> prevalence of casein allergies is, lactose intolerance is very, very common.

>

> -

Well here are some interesting comments I plucked off the Gluten Free

Casein Free Native Nutrition list, which in turn was was plucked off Dogtor

J's website:

" Lactose Intolerance- " It's a myth. Get over it. " that's what I want to

say and leave it at that, but there is more to it than that. The point

is that lactose is (just) a sugar and causes only a fraction of the

problems attributable to dairy products. The immune system does not

react strongly to sugars but rather is most interested in the proteins

we encounter. It is the protein in bacteria, viruses, foods, and

inhalants (e.g. house duct mites, pollens, grasses, molds) that the

immune system reacts to, triggering the body into a defensive posture to

limit their access. The results are nasal congestion, bronchial

constriction, gastrointestinal symptoms, and skin reactions such as

hives, all created in an attempt to limit the entry of these offending

antigenic proteins and to warn the individual of the fact that they have

done something wrong. Lactose does none of these things through an

immune mechanism like the proteins do. At most, this sugar causes

some indigestion and diarrhea which results from the lack of its digestion

and absorption.

Lactose is present in milk for two reasons. It provides calories to the calf

that is suckling its mother AND it is present to warn those people (and

their animals), who would be fool-hearty enough to drink the stuff, that

they are making a big mistake. There I said it, its my story, and I'm

sticking to it.

For example, if we look at type-1 diabetes (which we just covered), we see

an interesting correlation between it and lactose intolerance. The incidence

of type-1 diabetes has risen sharply in the past ten years, going up by over

40% in that time period. However, the aspect of this phenomenal rise that

grabbed my attention was the specific groups of people that comprised these

statistics. The risk groups were Native American Indians, African Americans,

Asians, and Hispanics. The vast majority of these people are lactose

intolerant, with the incidence of intolerance approaching 90-100% in the

first three groups. Does lactose cause diabetes? Of course not. But

researchers DO have their finger pointed at alpha s-1 casein, one of cow

milk's principle proteins, as the culprit.

But, as you may already have read, this particular casein protein (the s-1)

is nearly absent in all sheep and goat milk. The cow's milk, on the other

hand, is loaded with it. It is this protein that makes the strongest " glue "

and contributes the high levels of casomorphins. This glue that coats the

intestine is bound to contribute significantly to the reduced absorption of

the lactose. So, it is a perfect system, isn't it. The alpha s-1 casein is

the harmful substance and when it begins its damage, the lactose intolerance

suddenly gets worse to warn the individual that the damage is taking place.

How perfect is that? To prove the point, goat milk...the " universal foster

milk " ... has lactose as well. However, because it is devoid of casein, the

lactose does not become a problem in those who consume it, especially in

those who have never had the damaging cow milk. Amazing!

So once again, the lactose is just one more thing present in milk to warn

off those who would drink it. The reader has now learned about the

casomorphin, glutamate, arachadonic acid, and estrogen content of milk.

Lactose intolerance is a warning sign. Period! Heed the warning. "

The sinews of war, a limitless supply of money.

Cicero (106-43 B.C.), Roman orator, philosopher.

Philippics, Oration 5, sct. 5.

April 22, 2005

>Lactose intolerance is not an allergy, and regardless of what the actual

>prevalence of casein allergies is, lactose intolerance is very, very common.

>

>-

>

I always heard it was 70% of world population, but then I thought,

" Maybe it is vegan propaganda at work. " I'd be interested in knowing

statistics on lactose intolerance world wide.

Deanna

April 22, 2005

> RE: Sally's Milk-Drinking Habits

>

>Suze-

>

>>If only it were so then it would be a rare person indeed who couldn't

>>tolerate raw milk (full of lactase). But alas, the main milk allergy is to

>>casein :-(

>

>Lactose intolerance is not an allergy, and regardless of what the actual

>prevalence of casein allergies is, lactose intolerance is very,

>very common.

Note that I didn't say lactose intolerance is an allergy. Since lactose is a

sugar I'm not sure it's possible to even have an allergy to it in the truest

sense of allergies (which is relevant only to proteins, AFAIK). I used the

word " intolerant " deliberately as many people seem to have an intolerance to

pasteurized milk, which is, of course, devoid of lactase. Note also that I

said it would be much more rare IF lactose was the main problem, for people

to have a problem with RAW milk, since raw milk contains lactase which is

the enzyme that digests lactose.

However, even though it's full of lactase, there still seems to be a good

number of folks who cannot digest RAW milk. According to Dr. Fine at

Enterolabs, they're seeing a LOT of casein-intolerance, although they

haven't provided any numbers yet. I really think casein is far more

problematic than lactose when discussing raw milk.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

----------------------------

" 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

----------------------------

April 22, 2005

Suze Fisher wrote:

>>Well, I found out why. In response to a question at the end of the

>>lecture, Sally mentioned that tolerance to fresh milk (which I

>>assume is mainly dependent on tolerance to lactose)

>

> If only it were so then it would be a rare person indeed who couldn't

> tolerate raw milk (full of lactase). But alas, the main milk allergy is to

> casein :-(

>

I'm aware of that, Suze, but you're missing my logic. Casein is a completely

separate issue.

If you can tolerate fermented raw milk well but don't do well with fresh raw

milk, it would appear that your problem is NOT casein, since the lactobacilli do

nothing besides convert lactose to lactic acid. I'm thereby making the

assumption that soured milk has just as much casein as fresh milk. (Correct me

if I'm wrong on that.)

Let's forget about kefir since it has some weird things going on, so we're just

considering fresh milk versus the exact same milk after 20-30 days in the

fridge: nice and sour, almost no lactose left, but still thin and un-separated

(at least in my experience).

I often drink over a pint of fresh raw milk straight from the fridge and I get a

very full feeling afterward; I can tell my stomach is working hard on it. I

would not describe this feeling as unpleasant; it's just that I wouldn't want to

go jogging at that time, for example. If I drink a pint of cold sour raw milk, I

don't have that feeling. I feel full but my stomach/GI tract does not feel so

taxed.

My reasoning is thus: it is wrong to assume that simply because we know raw milk

contains *some* amount of lactase that it contains *exactly* enough lactase to

hydrolyze every last lactose molecule. Given that young mammals secrete lactase

from their intestinal villi, the lactase present in the milk itself is probably

*insufficient* to cleave all the lactose molecules into glucose and galactose

for absorption. Why then would young mammals (and certain mature humans) produce

lactase if there was plenty of lactase in the milk itself? It's clearly a system

with redundancy built in, but not complete redundancy. So if a given source of

milk does not have quite enough lactase to digest its own lactose, that OK

because the mammal digesting it can produce some lactase itself.

There are other factors involved in my personal experience, such as the fact

that I'm drinking my milk straight from the fridge (I don't wanna hear it, Mike

...!) and the optimum temperature for lactase to work is 48°C, and the

fact that modern Holstein milk is somewhat of a bad example, and the fact that I

grew up on pasteurized commercial milk with no lactase.

Tom

April 22, 2005

>>>>>> the fact that I grew up on pasteurized commercial milk with no

lactase.

Tom >>>

I grew up on Carnation Instant Non-fat Milk -- only. HUGE red and white

boxes full of white powder you'd mix with tap water. Is there anything

worse? ~Robin

April 23, 2005

> Re: Sally's Milk-Drinking Habits

>

>Suze Fisher wrote:

>>>Well, I found out why. In response to a question at the end of the

>>>lecture, Sally mentioned that tolerance to fresh milk (which I

>>>assume is mainly dependent on tolerance to lactose)

>>

>> If only it were so then it would be a rare person indeed who couldn't

>> tolerate raw milk (full of lactase). But alas, the main milk

>allergy is to

>> casein :-(

>>

>

>I'm aware of that, Suze, but you're missing my logic. Casein is a

>completely separate issue.

I definitely must've missed your point then because when you said you assume

intolerance to fresh raw milk is mainly dependent on lactose tolerance, I

thought you meant that it was dependent on lactose tolerance *versus some

other kind of intolerance* such as casein. From what I've learned about

casein intolerance thus far, it seems to me this is a much more likely

culprit.

>

>If you can tolerate fermented raw milk well but don't do well with

>fresh raw milk, it would appear that your problem is NOT casein,

>since the lactobacilli do nothing besides convert lactose to

>lactic acid. I'm thereby making the assumption that soured milk

>has just as much casein as fresh milk. (Correct me if I'm wrong on that.)

I don't know. Are you sure that ONLY lactose gets broken down? I know that

many foods, including animal foods contain inherant enzymes that break down

*proteins*. Like meat (as in *high* meat) for example. I think that is a

good example of how a food that is primarily animal protein *self-digests*.

Why would milk be different?

>

>Let's forget about kefir since it has some weird things going on,

Oh, kefir *definitely* digests animal protein as evidenced the tenderness in

meats that are soaked in kefir.

>so we're just considering fresh milk versus the exact same milk

>after 20-30 days in the fridge: nice and sour, almost no lactose

>left, but still thin and un-separated (at least in my experience).

Well, meat breaks itself down when left that length in the fridge, but I

don't have any idea what the ideal temp is for milk to break its proteins

down. Has anyone every tested milk soured at room temp for several days for

casein content?

>

>My reasoning is thus: it is wrong to assume that simply because we

>know raw milk contains *some* amount of lactase that it contains

>*exactly* enough lactase to hydrolyze every last lactose molecule.

>Given that young mammals secrete lactase from their intestinal

>villi, the lactase present in the milk itself is probably

>*insufficient* to cleave all the lactose molecules into glucose

>and galactose for absorption. Why then would young mammals (and

>certain mature humans) produce lactase if there was plenty of

>lactase in the milk itself? It's clearly a system with redundancy

>built in, but not complete redundancy. So if a given source of

>milk does not have quite enough lactase to digest its own lactose,

>that OK because the mammal digesting it can produce some lactase itself.

This makes sense to me. In fact I was just talking to yesterday

about Sally's statement that one doesn't use ANY enzymes when digesting raw

milk because it contains all the enzymes needed to digest itself. I wonder

where she got that idea from? thinks she got it from Howell,

which is probably true.

In any case, I understand your point about lactose seeming like the obvious

issue when comparing the digestibility of raw fresh vs. raw fermented milk.

It might be true, but I'm not sure about that, especially since *meat*

self-digests itself when " soured " .

As an aside, I've given this a lot of thought recently because I think I

might be casein intolerant and plan to take a test for this soon. But I

ordered some goat kefir in the meantime thinking that a) goat milk has less

of the problematic casein - alpha s1 - and since it's kefirized, it could

well be broken down into non-allergenic fractions. It'll be interesting to

see what my test resutls are.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

----------------------------

“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

----------------------------

April 23, 2005

Tom-

>My reasoning is thus: it is wrong to assume that simply because we know

>raw milk contains *some* amount of lactase that it contains *exactly*

>enough lactase to hydrolyze every last lactose molecule. Given that young

>mammals secrete lactase from their intestinal villi, the lactase present

>in the milk itself is probably *insufficient* to cleave all the lactose

>molecules into glucose and galactose for absorption. Why then would young

>mammals (and certain mature humans) produce lactase if there was plenty of

>lactase in the milk itself? It's clearly a system with redundancy built

>in, but not complete redundancy. So if a given source of milk does not

>have quite enough lactase to digest its own lactose, that OK because the

>mammal digesting it can produce some lactase itself.

Exactly so. The notion that raw milk has enough lactase to digest the

lactose in it is clearly fallacious. For one thing, if raw milk contained

sufficient free lactase, there'd very shortly be virtually no residual

lactose, but in fact it takes time -- and bacterial fermentation -- for

most of the lactose to be broken down.

-

April 23, 2005

>[suze] As an aside, I've given this a lot of thought recently because I think I

>might be casein intolerant and plan to take a test for this soon. But I

>ordered some goat kefir in the meantime thinking that a) goat milk has less

>of the problematic casein - alpha s1 - and since it's kefirized, it could

>well be broken down into non-allergenic fractions. It'll be interesting to

>see what my test resutls are.

In terms of studies, " hydrolyzed " casein doesn't cause T1 diabetes in

rats, but regular casein does. Since the usual methods of hydrolzying

casein involve fermentation or acids, I think that fermented milk is

partly or fully hydrolyzed ... and it *should* be hydrolyzed in the stomach

if the person has good stomach acid? (Or does a-casein have one of those hard

to break down peptides, like gliadin has?)

But also, the casein mainly is a problem in BABY rats. Feeding an adult

rat cow's milk doesn't cause T1 diabetes ... only if you feed it to

a young rat, pre-weaning. Said baby rat wouldn't have the stomach

acid to break down the casein?

And THAT brings up something in the Dogtor's writing that you mentioned:

yes, it's true milk is made for babies and so maybe " iffy " for adults.

But most of the DAMAGE it does seems to be to babies. That is,

you feed cow milk to baby rats, they get T1 diabetes. Baby rats

don't get T1 from rat milk. Adult rats don't get T1 from cow milk.

Baby rats don't get T1 from hydrolyzed cow milk either ... the issue

can be more accurately summed up as " you shouldn't feed

unhydrolyzed alpha 1 casein to baby rats " .

(It would be interesting to see if goat milk has the same effect

on baby rats ...)

Once a person is reactive to casein though, they seem to react

to very small amounts of the allergen, which makes things more

difficult. I do react to goat milk, and to kefired milk, but some

people don't.

Heidi Jean

April 24, 2005

Nope. That's about the worst I can remember. :-P

> >>>>>> the fact that I grew up on pasteurized commercial milk with no

> lactase.

> Tom >>>

>

> I grew up on Carnation Instant Non-fat Milk -- only. HUGE red and

white

> boxes full of white powder you'd mix with tap water. Is there anything

> worse? ~Robin

>

April 25, 2005

Suze Fisher wrote:

>> Re: Sally's Milk-Drinking Habits

>>

>>Suze Fisher wrote:

>>

>>>>Well, I found out why. In response to a question at the end of the

>>>>lecture, Sally mentioned that tolerance to fresh milk (which I

>>>>assume is mainly dependent on tolerance to lactose)

>>>

>>>If only it were so then it would be a rare person indeed who couldn't

>>>tolerate raw milk (full of lactase). But alas, the main milk

>>

>>allergy is to

>>

>>>casein :-(

>>>

>>

>>I'm aware of that, Suze, but you're missing my logic. Casein is a

>>completely separate issue.

>

> I definitely must've missed your point then because when you said you assume

> intolerance to fresh raw milk is mainly dependent on lactose tolerance, I

> thought you meant that it was dependent on lactose tolerance *versus some

> other kind of intolerance* such as casein. From what I've learned about

> casein intolerance thus far, it seems to me this is a much more likely

> culprit.

>

>>If you can tolerate fermented raw milk well but don't do well with

>>fresh raw milk, it would appear that your problem is NOT casein,

>>since the lactobacilli do nothing besides convert lactose to

>>lactic acid. I'm thereby making the assumption that soured milk

>>has just as much casein as fresh milk. (Correct me if I'm wrong on that.)

>

> I don't know. Are you sure that ONLY lactose gets broken down? I know that

> many foods, including animal foods contain inherant enzymes that break down

> *proteins*. Like meat (as in *high* meat) for example. I think that is a

> good example of how a food that is primarily animal protein *self-digests*.

> Why would milk be different?

>

>>Let's forget about kefir since it has some weird things going on,

>

> Oh, kefir *definitely* digests animal protein as evidenced the tenderness in

> meats that are soaked in kefir.

>

>>so we're just considering fresh milk versus the exact same milk

>>after 20-30 days in the fridge: nice and sour, almost no lactose

>>left, but still thin and un-separated (at least in my experience).

>

> Well, meat breaks itself down when left that length in the fridge, but I

> don't have any idea what the ideal temp is for milk to break its proteins

> down. Has anyone every tested milk soured at room temp for several days for

> casein content?

>

>>My reasoning is thus: it is wrong to assume that simply because we

>>know raw milk contains *some* amount of lactase that it contains

>>*exactly* enough lactase to hydrolyze every last lactose molecule.

>>Given that young mammals secrete lactase from their intestinal

>>villi, the lactase present in the milk itself is probably

>>*insufficient* to cleave all the lactose molecules into glucose

>>and galactose for absorption. Why then would young mammals (and

>>certain mature humans) produce lactase if there was plenty of

>>lactase in the milk itself? It's clearly a system with redundancy

>>built in, but not complete redundancy. So if a given source of

>>milk does not have quite enough lactase to digest its own lactose,

>>that OK because the mammal digesting it can produce some lactase itself.

>

> This makes sense to me. In fact I was just talking to yesterday

> about Sally's statement that one doesn't use ANY enzymes when digesting raw

> milk because it contains all the enzymes needed to digest itself. I wonder

> where she got that idea from? thinks she got it from Howell,

> which is probably true.

>

> In any case, I understand your point about lactose seeming like the obvious

> issue when comparing the digestibility of raw fresh vs. raw fermented milk.

> It might be true, but I'm not sure about that, especially since *meat*

> self-digests itself when " soured " .

>

> As an aside, I've given this a lot of thought recently because I think I

> might be casein intolerant and plan to take a test for this soon. But I

> ordered some goat kefir in the meantime thinking that a) goat milk has less

> of the problematic casein - alpha s1 - and since it's kefirized, it could

> well be broken down into non-allergenic fractions. It'll be interesting to

> see what my test resutls are.

>

Looking at my original post, I see that the statement I made about tolerance to

fresh milk was indeed pretty vague. I should have made it clear that I was

deliberately excluding casein intolerance. My gut feeling (yuk yuk) is that

gluten and casein intolerance are still relatively rare despite the large amount

of gluten/casein intolerant people represented on this and other health groups.

I personally have no allergies and no health problems whatsoever, which might

make me a minority here, so when I wrote my original post I was thinking of the

experience a non-casein-reactive person would have from drinking fresh milk.

Tom

April 25, 2005

Re: Sally's Milk-Drinking Habits

>

>Looking at my original post, I see that the statement I made about

>tolerance to fresh milk was indeed pretty vague. I should have

>made it clear that I was deliberately excluding casein

>intolerance.

Not a problem :-)

My gut feeling (yuk yuk) is that gluten and casein

>intolerance are still relatively rare despite the large amount of

>gluten/casein intolerant people represented on this and other

>health groups.

I don't think anyone has hard figures for casein, but as for gluten, approx.

1/3 of the American population is intolerant, and about 1/4 have the genes

associated with intolerance (95% with intolerance have these genes), so it's

definitely not rare.

I personally have no allergies and no health

>problems whatsoever, which might make me a minority here, so when

>I wrote my original post I was thinking of the experience a

>non-casein-reactive person would have from drinking fresh milk.

You are very fortunate indeed! :-)

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

----------------------------

“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

----------------------------

>

April 25, 2005

Yeah, but aren't most of those people just " intolerant " , not actually full-blown

Celiacs? I know Heidi et al. are strongly G/C intolerant but that's not

representative of the whole set of people who have some degree of G/C

intolerance.

Tom

P.S. How do you pronounce " Suze " ? In my head it rhymes with " snooze " but it just

occurred to me that may be way off!

[suze]

> I don't think anyone has hard figures for casein, but as for gluten, approx.

> 1/3 of the American population is intolerant, and about 1/4 have the genes

> associated with intolerance (95% with intolerance have these genes), so it's

> definitely not rare.

April 25, 2005

> Re: Sally's Milk-Drinking Habits

>

>[suze]

>> I don't think anyone has hard figures for casein, but as for

>gluten, approx.

>> 1/3 of the American population is intolerant, and about 1/4 have

>the genes

>> associated with intolerance (95% with intolerance have these

>genes), so it's

>> definitely not rare.

>

>Yeah, but aren't most of those people just " intolerant " , not

>actually full-blown Celiacs?

Yes, but what that means is that their body launches an IgA immune response

against gluten as it would against any other IgA allergen (casein, egg

protein, etc). Which means that they are at risk for developing any number

of serious diseases including depression, eczema, chronic fatigue, epilepsy,

asthma, bloating, psoriasis, bone diseases, several cancers including

prostate cancer, autism, emotional & behavioral disorders, MS, arthritis and

many, many autoimmune diseases. In fact, Approx 77% of patients with

autoimmune diseases, 57% with IBS and 50% of people with chronic diarrhea of

unknown origin test positive for gluten sensitivity on the stool test

according to recent report by Dr. Fine. These are only a few over 180

diseases linked to *gluten sensitivity* not Celiac specifically. Further, I

believe " Celiac " is defined as a certain level of damage to the intestines,

but the immune response to gluten can and does sometimes happen without the

typical intestinal Celiac damage and can lead to these other serious

conditions. So it's kind of pointless to make a distinction between the

larger umbrella of gluten sensitivity and it's subset, celiac disease. I

believe Heidi posted to the GFCFNN list that some researchers no longer

believe such distinctions are valid or useful, which makes sense to me.

I know Heidi et al. are strongly G/C

>intolerant but that's not representative of the whole set of

>people who have some degree of G/C intolerance.

No it's not. BUT again, the whole set of gluten intolerant folks DO launch

an IgA immune response to gluten and consequently are at much greater risk

for many diseases as a result, especially autoimmune disease. Some

researchers/health practitioners refere to Celiac as the tip of the iceberg.

Gluten sensitivity in this country is truly a silent epidemic...

>

>Tom

>

>P.S. How do you pronounce " Suze " ? In my head it rhymes with

> " snooze " but it just occurred to me that may be way off!

>

CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! Thank you! You are one of the rare people that got the

pronunciation of my name right. LOL Usually people pronounce it " Suzee " when

they see it in writing. Many even respond to my posts addressing me as

" Suzie " or " Suzy " . It's like their brain inserts letters that they think

*should* be there because they think it's pronounced " Suzee " . Anyways, you

are dead on. :-)

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

----------------------------

“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