Some Questions about Milk to help me decide

[pokeroo]

OK I've been reading some things and seeing some videos about milk and milk products and it is hard to make up my mind. For one it is hard to find a good source on anything. There are some points made by those of certain positions on milk which I am having trouble verifying or debunking wholly. The topics I am interested in here are: Processed milk vs. unpasteurized/non-homogenized/organic, and milk vs. milk substitutes.

Regarding raw vs. processed milk. I currently live in a region with no access to raw milk anyway, but I am interested in it as if it is better for you, I may take efforts to get it, and it may become one day available. The first point I am interested is a point made in a video I watched on youtube of an interview with I think the president of organic pastures. The point I am curious about is whether homogenization is bad for you. According to him, pasturization is done by passing milk through a stainless steel mesh at high pressure, which atomizes the fat molecules so that they become extremely small. This supposedly has 2 downsides: 1, They can add whatever they want to the milk without you knowing, and 2, fat (and cholesterol) can enter the bloodstream directly when it is atomized to this degree instead of being absorbed through the lymphatic system as fat normally is. This second point is mainly what concerns me. I have found no other sources to confirm or deny this point, but if it is true that almost definately means I should avoid drinking homogenized milk, and either drink skim only or drink the kind of milk that separates.

Now in the milk vs. substitutes debate, I have 2 questions, one regarding calcium absorption, and the other regarding protein bio availability.

Regarding calcium absorption, my question is about a couple claims, 1 that the protein in milk requires more calcium to digest than the milk provides, and 2, that you can only absorb as much calcium as there is magnesium provided, and therefore only get about 1/4 of the calcium available in milk. I have tried to falsify or prove these statements and I can't seem to find much information on bio availability that is not skewed by a political agenda. Anyone have factual knowledge, eg. textbook?

Regarding protein bioavailability, I've heard some state in other posts that their doctors say milk is a complete protein profile, whereas the vegan websites often claim that there is too much casein, and that the proportions of protein in milk are skewed. Supposedly consuming casein leads to an overproduction of mucous. I drink a lot of milk, and I have been subject to a lot of coughs and colds in recent years, I don't know if they could possibly be related. If milk contains more casein than my body needs, wouldn't it just excrete the stuff?

My previous understanding about bio-availability of proteins put food in a general rank like this:
Whey protein Isolate, then eggs, then meat, then dairy, then vegetable sources.
From this perspective dairy substitutes should be less effective at delivering protein.

Thanks. I am trying to figure out for myself if milk is as good or bad as they say and if it should be excluded or included in a diet. I am looking for the science. I am skeptical but for me this warrants investigation. If anyone can give me a scientifically sound follow up on any of these questions or whether milk is good for you or not it would be appreciated.

Also if you have any other nutrition related reasons on avoiding or going with milk. A lot of the non- milk stuff out there is specific to processed milk only, and doesn't seem to apply to orgainic or raw milk. Any reasons to avoid milk altogether? I am fully tolerant of lactose, I generally don't care about the ethical side of this issue, only the nutritional side.

[TheRuss]

Search function.

[pokeroo]

Search function.

LOL, tried that already. I found some debates on milk here, but none that answer my particular questions. Mostly they are debates that really suck, and don't get very technical about the biochemistry. Also as I mentioned on my post I have not been able to find any sources that are credible, or explain why in very good detail, whether these statements should be taken as true or false.

[ArrogantBastard]

Here's some info on pasteurized vs raw milk:
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/rawmilk.html

On the other questions, most things you will find on these topics will tell you that milk is still good for you and that most of these claims have not be scientifically proven (e.g. proper research methods, scientific method, etc.).

If you want to read more into it, I suggest checking out some nutrition books such as:
Nutrition: Concepts and Controversies
(http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b_...sprefix=nutrit)


Also, searching the internet through a university's database or using google scholar (http://scholar.google.com/schhp?hl=en&lr=) can give you better results.

[RoninPimp]

Vegans are idiots. Fact.

Humans have been drinking milk for tens of thousands of years. Its a nearly perfect food for humans.

That said, factory farming with the support of the gubment sucks. Feeding cows soybeans or corn is an abomination. Cows should eat grass and nothing else.

Try some grass fed whole milk from Whole Foods or a similar store and taste what real food is like. You'll never go back. I sure as hell won't.

[TheRuss]

I found some debates on milk here, but none that answer my particular questions.

Keep looking.

Also, you don't get to outsource your responsibility to think critically.

[Vorpal]

RP is on target. Anyone who thinks milk is bad for a mammal is a fucking retard.

[pokeroo]

TY, I am still drinking 3.5% pasturized milk for now. In Ontario it is impossible to get raw milk unless it is cheeze, or you are a farmer and own the cow, and keep the milk on your property. I suppose a farmer knows the conditions his cow has been kept under, and that is the thinking.

I agree that vegans are dumb with their anti-milk stuff, since we have clearly adapted to drink the stuff, but I was thinking what if they are right about one aspect of it?

I am not sure I buy the notion that raw milk is as dangerous as claimed by my government. It seems to me to be that governments are getting the idea that they need to protect us from our own choices. The stuff that goes on in factory farms is disturbing, and pasteurization is obviously necessary to protect us from pathogens that are there in the first place due to poor farming methods, but for cows that are allowed to graze on green grass, and moved from meadow to meadow, it is claimed (by many organic farmers) that these cattle have a much lower risk of delivering infected milk.

On the counter-point to that, getting an e-coli or listeria infection even once would for me outweigh a lifetime of whatever health benefit of raw milk may or may not give. I know in parts of the states they have standards in place to test for pathogens in raw milk, which makes that a lot more attractive than getting it from the black market.

I am still on the fence about the calcium benefit of milk, and I am going to try and investigate further the alegation of homogenization making the fat more dangerous. I have thought about it a bit since I wrote this post, and it should make it easier on your gall bladder, as less bile would be needed to digest fat that is already atomized. I'll have to check a science book about the digestive system to see exactly how nutrients are absorbed into the blood or lyphatic system to see if this claim is true or not. My hunch is that the claim is not true.

[ArrogantBastard]

I don't get your obsession with raw milk.
If there have been no proven benefits of it and pasteurization prevents milk from being infected, then I do not see an issue here.
Unless...the government is using pasteurization as a means of mind control. Where's my tin foil hat...

I agree that vegans are dumb with their anti-milk stuff, since we have clearly adapted to drink the stuff, but I was thinking what if they are right about one aspect of it?

Agree on most points, but technically humans as a whole have not adapted to drinking milk. Large portions of several groups are lactose intolerant.

Where are you getting all these "conspiracies" on milk from?
I don't take anything as a fact unless it can be verified. I think you are looking into this too much. Just drink milk.

[pokeroo]

Yes, I think you may be right. I am not aware of a conspiracy per se that I have mentioned, such as a coverup, but I think I know what you mean. I think you mean the factoids that I am trying to verify or falsify such as calcium requiring an equal amount of magnesium to be digested. I did not post links because I could not verify that the information in my sources was accurate, but I have heard this stuff a number of times and I got to thinking today what if some of it could be true? It caught my eye when I was viewing a video on kefir, something that I intend to try (I've already tried the grocery store version, but planning to get some curds and try the real stuff), and I saw a link to some raw milk video. I then looked at a number of viewpoints, mainstream milk, raw milk, and not-milk. I thought I was able to piece together a solid position regarding most of the claims made, eg. for the most part the non-milk position appeared to be more about being human than nutrition.

I guess the thing about me is that I am a kind of skeptic that still insistes on investigating claims even though they may initially seem absurd. Anyway, here is the video series that initially sparked my interest and brought forth my homogenizationg question:
YouTube - The Raw Milk Controversy: Fact & Fiction Chapter 1, Prt. 1
YouTube - Raw Milk Controversy - Chapter 1- Prt. 2
YouTube - Raw Milk Controversy: Fact & Fiction; Chptr 1, Prt 3
YouTube - The Raw Milk Controversy: Fact & Fiction - Chapter 2, Prt. 1

I'm not sure which one brings up the atomization of fat during homogenization and the fat entering the blood directly instead of lymph, but I found no other sources on that.

Regarding your comment that a lot of portions of humans are lactose intolerant, I take a different perspective. As far as I know, those of European ancestry tend to have much less lactose intolerance. The fact that humans produce an enzyme used to digest a sugar unique to cow's milk seems to indicate to me that we are particularely adapted to drinking milk, and for those that are lactose intolerant, I have heard that raw milk can be tolerated, plus fermented milk products and goat's milk can generally be tolerated by those that are lactose intolerant.

Anyway, generally I take a viewpoint such as yours, that if the author can't use science or site sources to prove something I just ignore it. Sometimes I still manage to get concerned, especially when I can't seem to disprove what is said.

Regarding my obsession with raw milk, the alleged benefits include better digestion of the milk, a higher amount or vitamins, better absorption of calcium, replenishment of intestinal flora, and better function of the immune system, including both less allergies, and fewer illnesses. Now as for proof, in science nothing is ever proven 100%. There is evidence for all the statements I just made, there may be evidence against them too. How much proof one needs is a personal matter. I don't think raw milk is really on the top of the scientific community's agenda right now so it may be a while before much certainty is gained.