Dairy industry unites to push milk propaganda

"Vernon" anere@anhere wrote in message
m...

"Jeff" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Jan Drew" wrote in message
t...

copyrighted material deleted

Dairy does have some good and bad qualities, like any food. It is a good
source of protein and calcium, for example. It is also a source of
saturated fats.

My favorite line is saying that milk is formulated for calves. It is not
like oranges, apples, wheat or anything else was formulated as a healthy
food for humans. Drinking milk is no more or less natural than eating
these foods.

Ever hear of lactose intollerance. (Millions have it and don't know it.)

Of course. And for people with lactose intollerance, there is milk treated
with enzymes to break down the lactose into simple sugars.

Ever hear of fungal infections fed by milk products?
Millions have it and don't know it.

Evidence please.

And that is in the U.S.A alone.

Drinking milk is a western culture syndrome, not a natural.

It is not a syndrome. It is something they do in western culture and in some
Asian communities, as well.

And it is natural for some western cultures.


The bottom line is that it is up to consumers to learn about the benefits
and drawbacks of any food.

Compared to the risks of eating Big Macs, Whoppers, KFC, and Freedom
Fries (known as French Fries before the Iraq War), milk is a relatively
healthy food, especially low-fat milk.

So, we have another double decade, out of touch, low fat advocate
BUT, Milk is right up there with the other "artificial" foods, Big Macs,
Whoppers, KFC, and French Fries .

Milk is a natural food.

There is nothing wrong with being a low-fat advocate.

Jeff



Jeff

Vernon wrote:
"Max C." wrote in message
ups.com...

Jeff wrote:
"Jan Drew" wrote in message
t...

copyrighted material deleted

Dairy does have some good and bad qualities, like any food. It is a good
source of protein and calcium, for example. It is also a source of
saturated
fats.

The calcium in pasteurized milk is much less absorbable than in raw
milk becuase the enzyme phospatase has been neautralized. Phosphatase
is required for optimum calcium utilization.



And goat's milk is even better, so?

Sorry... did I say anything about a particular animal in the above
statement?

Max.

"Max C." wrote in message
ups.com...

Jeff wrote:
"Jan Drew" wrote in message
t...

copyrighted material deleted

Dairy does have some good and bad qualities, like any food. It is a good
source of protein and calcium, for example. It is also a source of
saturated
fats.

The calcium in pasteurized milk is much less absorbable than in raw
milk becuase the enzyme phospatase has been neautralized. Phosphatase
is required for optimum calcium utilization.

http://www.westonaprice.org/transition/dairy.html
"Complete destruction of phosphatase is one method of testing to see if
milk has been adequately pasteurized. Phosphatase is essential for the
absorption of calcium."

Peer-reviewed evidence, please.

My favorite line is saying that milk is formulated for calves. It is not
like oranges, apples, wheat or anything else was formulated as a healthy
food for humans. Drinking milk is no more or less natural than eating
these
foods.

Agreed. Under that logic, apples are strictly designed to make baby
apple trees.

The bottom line is that it is up to consumers to learn about the benefits
and drawbacks of any food.

I'll agree, with stipulations. If all data on all food were clear cut,
I would agree 100%, however, there are companies and individuals who
have a conflict of interest when it comes to providing such data. The
discussion I've been in regarding aspartame is a perfect example.
NutraSweet would have one believe there is no data to support negative
health implications associated with its product. Obviously that's
completely false, as I have shown evidence to the contrary. What
consumers *NEED* are real facts from unbiased sources. It is sad that
such is often not the case in this world.

Compared to the risks of eating Big Macs, Whoppers, KFC, and Freedom
Fries
(known as French Fries before the Iraq War), milk is a relatively healthy
food, especially low-fat milk.

Completely disagree. Low fat milk usually has powdered milk added back
to it to thicken it up. That powdered milk contains oxidized
cholesterol and rancid fats, both produced by the powdering process
which usually involves high heat and or pressure. The process of
homogenization also renders the fat more suseptible to rancidification,
since it breaks apart the fat globules and unnaturally exposes them to
more oxygen. It's those types of cholesterol and fat that causes heart
disease, not the natural, unadulterated fats found in raw milk from
grass fed animals.

Whole fat raw milk from grass fed cows is full of fat soluble vitamins
as well as nutrients not found in milk from grain fed cows, like the
Wulzen anti-stiffness factor and Dr. Price's Activator X.

http://www.westonaprice.org/basicnut...minprimer.html
"Activator X or the Price Factor: Discovered by Weston Price, this
fat-soluble nutrient is a potent catalyst to mineral absorption. It is
found in certain fatty parts of animals that feed on young green
growing plants or microorganisms, such as organ meats, fish and
shellfish, fish eggs and butter from cows eating rapidly growing green
grass of spring and fall pasturage. Largely absent today, the Price
Factor was present in all traditional diets."

Peer-reviewed evidence, please.

Jeff

Vernon wrote:
"Max C." wrote in message
oups.com...

Vernon wrote:
"Jeff" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Jan Drew" wrote in message
t...

copyrighted material deleted

Dairy does have some good and bad qualities, like any food. It is a
good
source of protein and calcium, for example. It is also a source of
saturated fats.

My favorite line is saying that milk is formulated for calves. It is
not
like oranges, apples, wheat or anything else was formulated as a
healthy
food for humans. Drinking milk is no more or less natural than eating
these foods.

Ever hear of lactose intollerance. (Millions have it and don't know it.)
Ever hear of fungal infections fed by milk products?
Millions have it and don't know it.

And that is in the U.S.A alone.

Drinking milk is a western culture syndrome, not a natural.



The bottom line is that it is up to consumers to learn about the
benefits
and drawbacks of any food.

Compared to the risks of eating Big Macs, Whoppers, KFC, and Freedom
Fries
(known as French Fries before the Iraq War), milk is a relatively
healthy
food, especially low-fat milk.

So, we have another double decade, out of touch, low fat advocate
BUT, Milk is right up there with the other "artificial" foods, Big Macs,
Whoppers, KFC, and French Fries .


Jeff


I really wish you'd differentiate between healthy and non-healthy milk.
I really don't want to get in to this again:
http://tinyurl.com/yeznyf

Max.


Your definition of "milk" has nothing to do with what people are referring
to, specially when "low-fat" milk is stated.
Your "milk" is an ENTIRELY different product, no matter whether you own
stock in some raw, grass fed, farm OR are just TOTALLY obsessed.
In any case, high milk intake, especially cow's milk, is a new thing and
primarily Western culture, whether you like it or not.

Big Mac, Whoppers, KFC, French fries were mentioned.

Actually, skipping the brand versions, a hamburger sandwich or deep fried
chicken or French fries done with the right meat, bread and oils can be one
of the very best meals one can put together, not a steady diet, but great.

It's always funny in this subject how you end up A) attacking me
instead of addressing the issue and B) not supporting your position
with even a shred of evidence. I've come to expect nothing more.

I suppose you COULD say I'm obsessed... with the truth. You hold dear
this version of the truth that you can't (or won't) support with ANY
sort of verifiable information, and yet you have the gall to point
fingers at me. Don't they call believing in something with no evidence
"dogma?"

Max.

Jeff wrote:
"Max C." wrote in message
ups.com...

Jeff wrote:
"Jan Drew" wrote in message
t...

copyrighted material deleted

Dairy does have some good and bad qualities, like any food. It is a good
source of protein and calcium, for example. It is also a source of
saturated
fats.

The calcium in pasteurized milk is much less absorbable than in raw
milk becuase the enzyme phospatase has been neautralized. Phosphatase
is required for optimum calcium utilization.

http://www.westonaprice.org/transition/dairy.html
"Complete destruction of phosphatase is one method of testing to see if
milk has been adequately pasteurized. Phosphatase is essential for the
absorption of calcium."

Peer-reviewed evidence, please.

Are you asking for peer reviewed evidence that phosphatase is
neutralized in pasteurization? You can find that anywhere on the web.
Are you asking for evidence that phosphatase is required for calcium
absorption? Perhaps you should read a bio book and focus on pancreatic
enzymes.

If you're not keen on reading an entire book, I found this little
description of phosphatase for you:

PHOSPHATASE:

A key enzyme in accessing two of milk's important minerals, phosphorus
and calcium, phosphatase hydrolyses (breaks down with water) complex
compounds in milk (called phosphate esters) to release phosphorus ions.
Optimal calcium absorption is dependent on proper ratios of phosphorus
and magnesium.

Phosphatase is completely destroyed at the lowest typical pasteurizing
temperatures (which are also the highest needed to kill pathogenic
bacteria). Food processors test for the total absence of phosphatase to
determine if pasteurization was successful. Presumably, its absence
also makes getting phosphorus and calcium out of the milk more
difficult for our bodies.

My favorite line is saying that milk is formulated for calves. It is not
like oranges, apples, wheat or anything else was formulated as a healthy
food for humans. Drinking milk is no more or less natural than eating
these
foods.

Agreed. Under that logic, apples are strictly designed to make baby
apple trees.

The bottom line is that it is up to consumers to learn about the benefits
and drawbacks of any food.

I'll agree, with stipulations. If all data on all food were clear cut,
I would agree 100%, however, there are companies and individuals who
have a conflict of interest when it comes to providing such data. The
discussion I've been in regarding aspartame is a perfect example.
NutraSweet would have one believe there is no data to support negative
health implications associated with its product. Obviously that's
completely false, as I have shown evidence to the contrary. What
consumers *NEED* are real facts from unbiased sources. It is sad that
such is often not the case in this world.

Compared to the risks of eating Big Macs, Whoppers, KFC, and Freedom
Fries
(known as French Fries before the Iraq War), milk is a relatively healthy
food, especially low-fat milk.

Completely disagree. Low fat milk usually has powdered milk added back
to it to thicken it up. That powdered milk contains oxidized
cholesterol and rancid fats, both produced by the powdering process
which usually involves high heat and or pressure. The process of
homogenization also renders the fat more suseptible to rancidification,
since it breaks apart the fat globules and unnaturally exposes them to
more oxygen. It's those types of cholesterol and fat that causes heart
disease, not the natural, unadulterated fats found in raw milk from
grass fed animals.

Whole fat raw milk from grass fed cows is full of fat soluble vitamins
as well as nutrients not found in milk from grain fed cows, like the
Wulzen anti-stiffness factor and Dr. Price's Activator X.

http://www.westonaprice.org/basicnut...minprimer.html
"Activator X or the Price Factor: Discovered by Weston Price, this
fat-soluble nutrient is a potent catalyst to mineral absorption. It is
found in certain fatty parts of animals that feed on young green
growing plants or microorganisms, such as organ meats, fish and
shellfish, fish eggs and butter from cows eating rapidly growing green
grass of spring and fall pasturage. Largely absent today, the Price
Factor was present in all traditional diets."

Peer-reviewed evidence, please.

Jeff

HA! You're funny. Do you want peer reviewed evidence that powdered
milk is added back your precious low fat milk? You won't find any
because science is not required to prove it. Or are you asking for
peer reviewed evidence that oxidized cholesterol and rancid fats cause
heart disease? I should hope that is not the case, since it's hardly
an arguable point of discussion.

Even *if* I were completely wrong about raw milk, at best it would only
mean that milk, in general, should not be considered a beneficial food.
So, you'd better get busy finding that peer reviewed evidence that
rancid fat and oxydized cholesterol won't cause disease. You started
the claim, so you go first.

Max.

"Max C." wrote in message
oups.com...

Jeff wrote:
"Max C." wrote in message
ups.com...

Jeff wrote:
"Jan Drew" wrote in message
t...

copyrighted material deleted

Dairy does have some good and bad qualities, like any food. It is a
good
source of protein and calcium, for example. It is also a source of
saturated
fats.

The calcium in pasteurized milk is much less absorbable than in raw
milk becuase the enzyme phospatase has been neautralized. Phosphatase
is required for optimum calcium utilization.

http://www.westonaprice.org/transition/dairy.html
"Complete destruction of phosphatase is one method of testing to see if
milk has been adequately pasteurized. Phosphatase is essential for the
absorption of calcium."

Peer-reviewed evidence, please.

Are you asking for peer reviewed evidence that phosphatase is
neutralized in pasteurization? You can find that anywhere on the web.
Are you asking for evidence that phosphatase is required for calcium
absorption? Perhaps you should read a bio book and focus on pancreatic
enzymes.

Pancreatic enzymes are made by the person drinking the milk, not the cow.
Pasteurization would not affect the pancreatic enzymes.

I was asking for peer-reviewed evidence that calcium absorbtion is less
after pasteurization.

If you're not keen on reading an entire book, I found this little
description of phosphatase for you:

PHOSPHATASE:

A key enzyme in accessing two of milk's important minerals, phosphorus
and calcium, phosphatase hydrolyses (breaks down with water) complex
compounds in milk (called phosphate esters) to release phosphorus ions.
Optimal calcium absorption is dependent on proper ratios of phosphorus
and magnesium.

Phosphatase is completely destroyed at the lowest typical pasteurizing
temperatures (which are also the highest needed to kill pathogenic
bacteria). Food processors test for the total absence of phosphatase to
determine if pasteurization was successful. Presumably, its absence
also makes getting phosphorus and calcium out of the milk more
difficult for our bodies.

Presumably. Wow, that shows that this was well-iuvestigated.


My favorite line is saying that milk is formulated for calves. It is
not
like oranges, apples, wheat or anything else was formulated as a
healthy
food for humans. Drinking milk is no more or less natural than eating
these
foods.

Agreed. Under that logic, apples are strictly designed to make baby
apple trees.

The bottom line is that it is up to consumers to learn about the
benefits
and drawbacks of any food.

I'll agree, with stipulations. If all data on all food were clear cut,
I would agree 100%, however, there are companies and individuals who
have a conflict of interest when it comes to providing such data. The
discussion I've been in regarding aspartame is a perfect example.
NutraSweet would have one believe there is no data to support negative
health implications associated with its product. Obviously that's
completely false, as I have shown evidence to the contrary. What
consumers *NEED* are real facts from unbiased sources. It is sad that
such is often not the case in this world.

Compared to the risks of eating Big Macs, Whoppers, KFC, and Freedom
Fries
(known as French Fries before the Iraq War), milk is a relatively
healthy
food, especially low-fat milk.

Completely disagree. Low fat milk usually has powdered milk added back
to it to thicken it up. That powdered milk contains oxidized
cholesterol and rancid fats, both produced by the powdering process
which usually involves high heat and or pressure. The process of
homogenization also renders the fat more suseptible to rancidification,
since it breaks apart the fat globules and unnaturally exposes them to
more oxygen. It's those types of cholesterol and fat that causes heart
disease, not the natural, unadulterated fats found in raw milk from
grass fed animals.

Whole fat raw milk from grass fed cows is full of fat soluble vitamins
as well as nutrients not found in milk from grain fed cows, like the
Wulzen anti-stiffness factor and Dr. Price's Activator X.

http://www.westonaprice.org/basicnut...minprimer.html
"Activator X or the Price Factor: Discovered by Weston Price, this
fat-soluble nutrient is a potent catalyst to mineral absorption. It is
found in certain fatty parts of animals that feed on young green
growing plants or microorganisms, such as organ meats, fish and
shellfish, fish eggs and butter from cows eating rapidly growing green
grass of spring and fall pasturage. Largely absent today, the Price
Factor was present in all traditional diets."

Peer-reviewed evidence, please.

Jeff

HA! You're funny. Do you want peer reviewed evidence that powdered
milk is added back your precious low fat milk? You won't find any
because science is not required to prove it. Or are you asking for
peer reviewed evidence that oxidized cholesterol and rancid fats cause
heart disease? I should hope that is not the case, since it's hardly
an arguable point of discussion.

Even *if* I were completely wrong about raw milk, at best it would only
mean that milk, in general, should not be considered a beneficial food.
So, you'd better get busy finding that peer reviewed evidence that
rancid fat and oxydized cholesterol won't cause disease. You started
the claim, so you go first.

Max.

No, peer-reviewed evidenced that drinking low-fat milk is as unhealthy as
you claim.

Jeff

"Max C." wrote in message
oups.com...

Vernon wrote:
"Max C." wrote in message
oups.com...

Vernon wrote:
"Jeff" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Jan Drew" wrote in message
t...

copyrighted material deleted

Dairy does have some good and bad qualities, like any food. It is a
good
source of protein and calcium, for example. It is also a source of
saturated fats.

My favorite line is saying that milk is formulated for calves. It is
not
like oranges, apples, wheat or anything else was formulated as a
healthy
food for humans. Drinking milk is no more or less natural than
eating
these foods.

Ever hear of lactose intollerance. (Millions have it and don't know
it.)
Ever hear of fungal infections fed by milk products?
Millions have it and don't know it.

And that is in the U.S.A alone.

Drinking milk is a western culture syndrome, not a natural.



The bottom line is that it is up to consumers to learn about the
benefits
and drawbacks of any food.

Compared to the risks of eating Big Macs, Whoppers, KFC, and Freedom
Fries
(known as French Fries before the Iraq War), milk is a relatively
healthy
food, especially low-fat milk.

So, we have another double decade, out of touch, low fat advocate
BUT, Milk is right up there with the other "artificial" foods, Big
Macs,
Whoppers, KFC, and French Fries .


Jeff


I really wish you'd differentiate between healthy and non-healthy milk.
I really don't want to get in to this again:
http://tinyurl.com/yeznyf

Max.


Your definition of "milk" has nothing to do with what people are
referring
to, specially when "low-fat" milk is stated.
Your "milk" is an ENTIRELY different product, no matter whether you own
stock in some raw, grass fed, farm OR are just TOTALLY obsessed.
In any case, high milk intake, especially cow's milk, is a new thing and
primarily Western culture, whether you like it or not.

Big Mac, Whoppers, KFC, French fries were mentioned.

Actually, skipping the brand versions, a hamburger sandwich or deep fried
chicken or French fries done with the right meat, bread and oils can be
one
of the very best meals one can put together, not a steady diet, but
great.

It's always funny in this subject how you end up A) attacking me
instead of addressing the issue and B) not supporting your position
with even a shred of evidence. I've come to expect nothing more.

I suppose you COULD say I'm obsessed... with the truth. You hold dear
this version of the truth that you can't (or won't) support with ANY
sort of verifiable information, and yet you have the gall to point
fingers at me. Don't they call believing in something with no evidence
"dogma?"

Max.


You don't want to know, otherwise you would get educated.
It has NOTHING to do with your non-contextual answer.
I addressed the issue. You didn't.
I addressed your issue, you have zero backing of any alternate to what I
said.

Of all the people on this N.G you are probably the only one who purchases
what you think is milk from what you are told is from a grass fed cow.
You in all probability have never even tasted it. You, because of your
obsession, assume I am arguing with you . I agree with the advantages of
good raw milk over the stuff sold in stores.
I have tasted what you think you have tasted. I actually have gathered the
grass, stored it and fed it to cows. I further know the history of cows in
various cultures. I know that 15th 16th 17th century soldiers had very
little access to whole milk. I further know that dried skim milk is the
ONLY feasible dried milk of that time.
The argument of milk consumption, especially while traveling in the summer
is as dumb as the nut cases who say that Jesus or apostles drank grape juice
and not alcoholic wine. Oh, yes, and the American Indians that rode horses
in the 1600s, ha ha ha ha ha.

So, buy your milk from wherever you do. Be happy with it. Assume that it
is better. Most of the rest of us don't even have access to what you
imagine you purchase, you may, but you would be lucky.

According to your response, I have to assume that you disagree with the
concept that a good meat in a good bread with tomatoes lettuce and cucumber
is not nourishing. Which of the components do you want proof of viability?

Do you go into a restaurant with your bottle of milk? Do you know the
changes in milk over the first hour, first 12 hours, first 24 hours after
taken from the cow? Not that it makes much difference, but you should know,
right?

Jeff wrote:
"Max C." wrote in message
oups.com...

Jeff wrote:
"Max C." wrote in message
ups.com...

Jeff wrote:
"Jan Drew" wrote in message
t...

copyrighted material deleted

Dairy does have some good and bad qualities, like any food. It is a
good
source of protein and calcium, for example. It is also a source of
saturated
fats.

The calcium in pasteurized milk is much less absorbable than in raw
milk becuase the enzyme phospatase has been neautralized. Phosphatase
is required for optimum calcium utilization.

http://www.westonaprice.org/transition/dairy.html
"Complete destruction of phosphatase is one method of testing to see if
milk has been adequately pasteurized. Phosphatase is essential for the
absorption of calcium."

Peer-reviewed evidence, please.

Are you asking for peer reviewed evidence that phosphatase is
neutralized in pasteurization? You can find that anywhere on the web.
Are you asking for evidence that phosphatase is required for calcium
absorption? Perhaps you should read a bio book and focus on pancreatic
enzymes.

Pancreatic enzymes are made by the person drinking the milk, not the cow.
Pasteurization would not affect the pancreatic enzymes.

And those who lack the ability to produce the pancreatic enzyme
phosphatase in proper quantities will lack the ability to assimilate
calcium. It's the same scenario and those who can not produce lactase
and so can not assimilate the milk sugar lactose.

I was asking for peer-reviewed evidence that calcium absorbtion is less
after pasteurization.

I have not found any. Someone has to PAY for scientific studies, and
there are no multinational grass fed raw milk companies willing to fork
over the money. I'll do some digging and see what I can come up with.

If you're not keen on reading an entire book, I found this little
description of phosphatase for you:

PHOSPHATASE:

A key enzyme in accessing two of milk's important minerals, phosphorus
and calcium, phosphatase hydrolyses (breaks down with water) complex
compounds in milk (called phosphate esters) to release phosphorus ions.
Optimal calcium absorption is dependent on proper ratios of phosphorus
and magnesium.

Phosphatase is completely destroyed at the lowest typical pasteurizing
temperatures (which are also the highest needed to kill pathogenic
bacteria). Food processors test for the total absence of phosphatase to
determine if pasteurization was successful. Presumably, its absence
also makes getting phosphorus and calcium out of the milk more
difficult for our bodies.

Presumably. Wow, that shows that this was well-iuvestigated.


My favorite line is saying that milk is formulated for calves. It is
not
like oranges, apples, wheat or anything else was formulated as a
healthy
food for humans. Drinking milk is no more or less natural than eating
these
foods.

Agreed. Under that logic, apples are strictly designed to make baby
apple trees.

The bottom line is that it is up to consumers to learn about the
benefits
and drawbacks of any food.

I'll agree, with stipulations. If all data on all food were clear cut,
I would agree 100%, however, there are companies and individuals who
have a conflict of interest when it comes to providing such data. The
discussion I've been in regarding aspartame is a perfect example.
NutraSweet would have one believe there is no data to support negative
health implications associated with its product. Obviously that's
completely false, as I have shown evidence to the contrary. What
consumers *NEED* are real facts from unbiased sources. It is sad that
such is often not the case in this world.

Compared to the risks of eating Big Macs, Whoppers, KFC, and Freedom
Fries
(known as French Fries before the Iraq War), milk is a relatively
healthy
food, especially low-fat milk.

Completely disagree. Low fat milk usually has powdered milk added back
to it to thicken it up. That powdered milk contains oxidized
cholesterol and rancid fats, both produced by the powdering process
which usually involves high heat and or pressure. The process of
homogenization also renders the fat more suseptible to rancidification,
since it breaks apart the fat globules and unnaturally exposes them to
more oxygen. It's those types of cholesterol and fat that causes heart
disease, not the natural, unadulterated fats found in raw milk from
grass fed animals.

Whole fat raw milk from grass fed cows is full of fat soluble vitamins
as well as nutrients not found in milk from grain fed cows, like the
Wulzen anti-stiffness factor and Dr. Price's Activator X.

http://www.westonaprice.org/basicnut...minprimer.html
"Activator X or the Price Factor: Discovered by Weston Price, this
fat-soluble nutrient is a potent catalyst to mineral absorption. It is
found in certain fatty parts of animals that feed on young green
growing plants or microorganisms, such as organ meats, fish and
shellfish, fish eggs and butter from cows eating rapidly growing green
grass of spring and fall pasturage. Largely absent today, the Price
Factor was present in all traditional diets."

Peer-reviewed evidence, please.

Jeff

HA! You're funny. Do you want peer reviewed evidence that powdered
milk is added back your precious low fat milk? You won't find any
because science is not required to prove it. Or are you asking for
peer reviewed evidence that oxidized cholesterol and rancid fats cause
heart disease? I should hope that is not the case, since it's hardly
an arguable point of discussion.

Even *if* I were completely wrong about raw milk, at best it would only
mean that milk, in general, should not be considered a beneficial food.
So, you'd better get busy finding that peer reviewed evidence that
rancid fat and oxydized cholesterol won't cause disease. You started
the claim, so you go first.

Max.

No, peer-reviewed evidenced that drinking low-fat milk is as unhealthy as
you claim.

Oh, is THAT all? Jeez, why didn't you say so? Since it is not in
question that powdered milk is added to low fat milk, and since we know
that the heating process oxidizes the cholesterol therein, all you
really need to know is what the addition of that oxidized cholesterol
will do to you:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

BUUUUT of course you're going to say "Hey, that's not milk." Well, if
I must:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract
"Evidence is related supporting the hypothesis that heat-denatured
bovine immunoglobulin (BGG) may be a major risk factor in the
pathogenesis of atherosclerosis; it is shown that not only does the
consumption of denatured BGG correlate at all three major
epidemiological levels--historical, international and social class--but
this highly reactive and invasive molecule also seems to possess the
biological and/or pathological properties from which could evolve the
main pathological changes found not only in atherosclerosis but also in
some of its complications."

Heat-denatured....hmmmm kinda sounds like pasteurization to me.

You also need to watch out what kind of cow you get your milk from:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=12957678

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract
Maybe I'm wrong, but couldn't an increase in HMB CoA reductase activity
be a bad thing?

I'd also like to point out that I found many reports on pubmed on the
heart benefits on dairy products, but most of them were tied to yogurt
or did not mention what type of milk product was in question. Nor did
those studies mention the addition of powdered milk to the milk in
question.

Max.

"Jeff" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Vernon" anere@anhere wrote in message
m...

"Jeff" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Jan Drew" wrote in message
t...

copyrighted material deleted

Dairy does have some good and bad qualities, like any food. It is a good
source of protein and calcium, for example. It is also a source of
saturated fats.

My favorite line is saying that milk is formulated for calves. It is not
like oranges, apples, wheat or anything else was formulated as a healthy
food for humans. Drinking milk is no more or less natural than eating
these foods.

Ever hear of lactose intollerance. (Millions have it and don't know it.)

Of course. And for people with lactose intollerance, there is milk treated
with enzymes to break down the lactose into simple sugars.

Better tell that to all the doctors and ESPECIALLY those who are unaware of
their intollerance.


Ever hear of fungal infections fed by milk products?
Millions have it and don't know it.

Evidence please.

Ask a doctor what one of the first things to avoid for woman with candida.


And that is in the U.S.A alone.

Drinking milk is a western culture syndrome, not a natural.

It is not a syndrome. It is something they do in western culture and in
some Asian communities, as well.

Go to asia and find out.
My son who travels a lot in all parts of asia, learned to drink black coffee
because it wasn't easy to get milk or cream for his coffee. SOME areas of
Thailand are EXCEPTIONS.
Like I said, go to Asia and find out.


And it is natural for some western cultures.

Natural NOW



The bottom line is that it is up to consumers to learn about the
benefits and drawbacks of any food.

Compared to the risks of eating Big Macs, Whoppers, KFC, and Freedom
Fries (known as French Fries before the Iraq War), milk is a relatively
healthy food, especially low-fat milk.

So, we have another double decade, out of touch, low fat advocate
BUT, Milk is right up there with the other "artificial" foods, Big Macs,
Whoppers, KFC, and French Fries .

Milk is a natural food.

Yes
Of course you drink "natural" milk, pasteurized, homogenized, 2 to 6 %
cream, milk. Just kidding, but it is over rated and not the panecea pushed
by the dairy industry.
What breed cow gives milk even as low as 6%?

There is nothing wrong with being a low-fat advocate.

Except that it "often" CAUSES cancer an agravates most heart problems (not
all).


Jeff



Jeff

Jan Drew wrote:
"Jeff" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Jan Drew" wrote in message
t...

copyrighted material deleted

Wrong.

FAIR USE
The NewsTarget Network publishes excerpts and summaries from copyrighted
works under Fair Use, which allows the use of copyrighted materials for
purposes of commentary and criticism for the public interest. NewsTarget
transforms summaries of the original copyrighted work into a new format and
adds new information and value in the form of commentary or criticism.

He's not wrong, you are.

You posted copyrighted material, he deleted it
and courteously noted it.

You knew he was right when yoou contradicted him.
you lied, again, shrew.