Posts by northernskipper41

Hannah Barrett85 said:Too cold... makes it look like some sailboat just drifting along.. haha..😬 🙂

It’d probably look more like an old river steamboat, you know, with that massive paddle wheel.😁

I paid about $80 for the glass
and you have to get that done separately at the manufacturer's facility where the frames come from (these ones are pretty bent, which is usually a headache anyway)

Amanda Turner70 said:Some other study apparently proved that beer is packed with female hormones... 🙂

You heard about that? 🙂

Look, the liver breaks down estrogen, which men actually produce in small amounts too.

If you wreck your liver, those female hormone levels spike. Don't act surprised when you start growing man boobs and a backside.👍

Melissa Cruz2 said:feels like everyone’s cholesterol is through the roof lately. you think they just set the standard levels high enough to force us all onto more meds?

not everyone, just
high. if you eat right and actually stay active, it should stay within the normal range
that's how you bring it down

if it's still spiking past the limits, you're probably looking at genetics. you gotta check your family history (atherosclerosis, heart attacks) because there's definitely a hereditary link to chronic cardiovascular disease
especially if you've got high triglycerides mixed in too

John Mitchell said:No way I'm touching even a single glass of wine after lunch. Plus, I'd probably put on a few pounds. It says right here that this stuff is dangerous for people who are already underweight... 😢

If you aren't getting enough carbs—which the body turns into glucose and stores as glycogen, basically the fuel for your brain and nerves—
the body tries to protect its precious glucose supply by tapping into fat stores, forcing tissues to switch over to using fat for energy instead.

The whole system for mobilizing fat isn't exactly fine-tuned. You end up with fatty acids flooding the liver. When you mix that with alcohol and meds—which are basically toxins the liver has to detoxify—it’s a recipe for cell damage. The liver is already drowning in fat droplets stuffed into its cells as it is.

Gerald Kern77 said:Thanks, nimbleskipper13!
If I could just kick this nicotine habit... maybe my cholesterol wouldn't be such a disaster. 🙂

Not necessarily. You should probably check if it's genetic—that's actually pretty common with all those different types of disorders out there.

The junk in cigarettes wrecks your blood vessels, which basically just gives the cholesterol a head start on trashing your heart.

Try tackling it with diet and exercise first, though you might be looking at medication too.

northernskipper41 said:Nah, there are actually dairy products that are more nutrient-dense (higher dry matter, etc.) that don't even have that sugar people complain about.

man, you're being dense. It’s all right there in the text, plus everything Hippocrates ever said.

If you honestly believe milk can be a complete meal for an adult, I'm not even gonna waste my breath trying to change your mind.
people are just scavengers.
milk is primarily designed to feed offspring during their earliest stages—you can tell just by looking at its composition and the physiology of an infant, or Mladun.

If you want to play games, go ahead and write down exactly which nutritional requirements of an adult human are actually met by milk.

I seriously don't know how you explain to a pumpkin that the earth is round when all they see out their window is flat ground.

driftinggull13 said:I'm not gonna quote everyone. What food is actually more nutritionally balanced than milk? Dry matter??? You can find as much of that as you want in hay. Look, you’re an absolute pro at misreading everything I say, and this is the second time now. Try reading closer. Nobody ever said cats should be fed nothing but cow's milk, especially kittens. For the record, my cat just had kittens and she's nursing them herself. Even if milk isn't the best stuff, she doesn't know any better because (according to your logic) a cat is just a cat and doesn't get it.
Cats drink cow's milk, most animals drink cow's milk if they can get to it, so cow's milk is a good food except for people with flaws. I feel like I'm repeating myself for the third time here. Go ahead, tell me which food is more balanced than milk since you claim there are plenty of them.

cream is way higher in energy than milk
If you're such a precise reader, I don't get how you missed that—I never said there were foods with a more balanced composition, quite the opposite.

You really are a special kind of genius calling people with adult lactose intolerance "flawed," especially after everything that was written right here.

Explaining to you exactly what nutritional gaps you get from living solely on milk as an adult... honestly, I don't have the energy, and it's not even the point of this thread.
Kid, kittens mostly just lie around and sleep, which should be enough reason for you to use that brain of yours—which apparently runs at full capacity even when you're sleeping.

You actually think your cat has some little tube connecting her digestive tract to her nipples just so the kittens can nurse?
Just buy her some actual food. 🙂

Man, what "chronic" reasons?

Look at the Eskimo
their bodies don't even produce lactase or sucrase—they can't handle dairy or basic sugar.
So, the takeaway is that the body is actually a pretty damn rational system.
They live on a diet that's basically 50% fat and saturated fatty acids, yet they aren't dropping dead from heart attacks for the usual reasons (though lately, they probably are just because of all the junk food hitting the market).

These reasons go back 6,000 years.

I’m still sticking to my guns: her ancestors were Attila the Hun.

It’s purely genetic—evolutionary stuff, really. There’s no point overthinking it; you just gotta skip the lactose

maybe she’s got some Attila the Hun in her bloodline

driftinggull13 said:Where did I ever say milk was healthy for people who are lactose intolerant?

People who can't handle lactose shouldn't be the benchmark for how nutritious milk actually is.

Stop lecturing everyone on genetics or other medical issues and just talk about the nutritional value of milk compared to other foods.
That’s the only way to judge quality, instead of focusing on people for whom it causes issues due to biological makeup.

You were the first one to jump in here and start preaching to lactose-intolerant folks about how milk is all that's good for them.

Go ahead, try explaining to an Eskimo that chocolate is a nutritional powerhouse.
All you'll do is kill him because he lacks the sugar processing for it.

So, according to you, Eskimos are just biologically flawed?😕 🙄 ,
If you ask me, they and their ancestors never even needed that enzyme—their diet is basically 50% fat.

driftinggull13 said:If this stuff was common knowledge, I wouldn't be wasting my breath writing about it here. Read the thread more carefully—where did I ever say milk is healthy for people with lactose intolerance? Those folks aren't the benchmark for how nutritious milk actually is. Besides, what's the deal with cats losing their lactase activity? My cat handles it just fine at home without any issues, and so does mine.
Stop lecturing me on genetics or whatever medical nonsense and talk about the nutritional value of milk compared to other foods. That’s the only way to measure quality, not by looking at people who can't digest it because of some biological glitch. You get what I'm saying now?
If you want to compare food quality, look at the composition, the variety, and the balance of nutrients. Go ahead, find me one single thing that matches the quality of milk.

So Max defended the skim milk part, big deal. So what if there's a little less fat? What's the harm?
Give me an example of a grain, please. Put some grain in front of a cat and let's see if they'll eat it. And don't even get me started on how they hide flavors in those things. Cats drink milk straight up, no additives needed, and it's not just my cat.
Come on, geniuses, which food actually has nutritional values close to milk?
Let me repeat it for the slow learners: a food's nutritional value has nothing to do with whether or not certain people are lactose intolerant.

Go back and read your very first post in this thread.

I specifically commented on the makeup of milk. Even old Hippocrates claimed it was the most perfect food. The reality is that for intolerant people, all that sugar makes it lose any real nutritional worth.
Milk has about 3.3% protein, 3.9% milk fat, and roughly 4.7% lactose (which means 47g of lactose per liter—just think about how much that can feed the bacteria in the gut).
That said, there are dairy products that are nutritionally superior (higher dry matter content) and don't contain that problematic sugar.

When diarrhea hits, the body stops producing lactase altogether if it's already struggling (so you diet).

It's not just people with genetic issues in that group; we're talking about entire populations whose ancestors were strictly farmers... (which is why they came up with yogurt, cheese, and all that. Look at it sideways—there are plenty of African Americans in that category, just like there are people from certain European backgrounds).

As for grains and cats...
Cats are obligate carnivores, plain and simple.
The biological value of grain protein is a disaster (around 35), whereas for ruminants, it's closer to 70.
If rice has 7% protein but a biological value of only 35, that's basically like having 2.5% protein if a 150lb human needed to meet their requirements (about 60g of protein daily). They'd have to eat like 6 pounds of rice a day. Impossible. It's 79% carbs—pure energy export.

I'm saying this for the good of the cats.

People have these wrong ideas that lead them to give cats cow's milk. Cats love milk, regardless of whether they can handle the lactose or not. If they get diarrhea later, they won't even connect it to the milk they drank (and honestly, neither do some people when they really think about it).
It's well known that people who eat more bread (including those scavenging through trash) produce more amylase in their saliva over time as the body adapts. The same applies to cats and milk.

But we need to look at this from a nutritional standpoint, like driftinggull13 wants.
Analysis of cow's milk shows that the calcium-to-phosphorus ratio and the lactose levels are too high, while the energy, protein, and fat are too low to support a growing kitten.
You could add an egg yolk to cow's milk to enrich it and bump the protein and fat up to an acceptable level. (Egg whites, despite having most of the protein, shouldn't be added because cats don't like them, plus they contain avidin, which binds biotin and makes it unusable).
By the time we're done crunching the numbers, you've still got calcium levels sitting at 4x too high and phosphorus at 2x too high compared to what a cat actually needs.

Any sane person can see that feeding cats cow's milk long-term is just plain wrong—it’s unhealthy. Given their protein requirements, the only way milk even makes sense is if you're using it as a substitute for water (which they won't chug by the gallon, and even if they did, they wouldn't last long), and honestly, you'd have to dilute it with equal parts water anyway—not just because of the lactose, but because of those minerals.

Now that we've finally settled on how "perfect" milk is as a food source (shout out to Hippocrates and everyone up through the 7th century), go ahead and drink your precious milk. Just give the cat some meat or buy actual cat food.

Rebecca Myers38 said:breaststroke 😎
I'm over constantly pulling my arms out of the water for Michael Phelps style 😳 😬

mixed bag,
got my own little styles (hands-free)
mostly just trying to make sure I don't inhale the pool 😁

driftinggull13 said:There it is. The classic "I read somewhere" approach. If you’d actually put in some effort to look at actual literature—or even just dig through old threads on this topic—you wouldn't be asking questions about physiology. It's because people don't bother reading actual nutrition biochemistry and instead swallow whatever garbage they find on random websites or those clueless "wellness" magazines.
Milk is healthy because of its balanced profile of proteins, fats, minerals, vitamins, etc., which is exactly what kids need. Get it? No other food has a composition quite like it; basically, it's the ultimate food.
Adults don't drink milk because they don't have access to it anymore. An adult cat doesn't nurse from its mother once she's out of lactation. Try giving an adult cat milk and see if they even touch it.
Etiquette??? What part of my last post was offensive? The person I was talking to got a whole dose of data, but she's sticking to her guns despite all the facts presented. Facts are facts when they fit someone's ideological matrix, but the second they don't, you have to repeat them across a hundred different threads.
It "doesn't make sense" that it isn't good?????? Good grief, how can animals drink milk when they don't have it outside of lactation periods??????
You have to look at nutritional value, not social context.😉

Mr. Read, while you're busy reading physiology, maybe try picking up some pathology too so you stop talking such obvious crap.

Finally explain why someone with a genetic lactose deficiency would touch a food they're intolerant to. Why wouldn't they just stick to dairy products where bacteria have already converted the lactose into lactic acid (like yogurt or kefir)? If they want ice cream, there's fruit sorbet.

As for cats, you clearly still have that cliché stuck in your head that cats drink milk and love catching mice.
Lactase levels in adult cats drop to about 10% compared to kittens, so milk is basically just fuel for bacteria and a one-way ticket to diarrhea (it's osmotically active, messes with their flora, causes gas, etc.).
Plus, the phosphorus concentration in cow's milk is three times higher, which is terrible for their kidneys...

It would be interesting to look at the historical side of why certain groups of people can't handle unfermented milk.

When it comes to the nutritional value of milk, it completely falls apart for that specific group of people.
Because of ignorance like this, battles have been lost in wars. Luckily, they didn't lose the war, because they eventually realized what actually mattered during the American Civil War.

Probably won't make it. It takes forever just to finish one of those massive 5-pound bags of chips they sell; they don't make anything smaller than that anymore.

Peter Myers29 said:The best move is just dumping table salt on the wound (though maybe take a shot of tequila first). Salt draws out the moisture and dries everything up, plus it’s iodized...

If you're looking to score a massive, ugly scar, this is definitely the way to go. (Though, uh, if it's on your face, maybe don't. If it's on your ass? Sure, throw some black pepper in there too.)👍

Gary Jones10 said:You’re only halfway right.

Chemotherapy—or cytotoxic therapy, if you want to get technical—is used even when doctors can't say with 100% certainty that surgery cleared everything out.

And when it's caught in that "very early stage," they go straight for surgery. That's when the results are actually the best.
Obviously, surgery doesn't apply to things like leukemia—which is basically just "blood cancer" in plain English—or certain brain tumors in hard-to-reach spots, no matter how small they are.

You're equating chemo with hopeless cases, which isn't accurate or fair to the people actually fighting cancer.

I hear you, but if we start digging into how much certain immunotherapies—and most treatments, really—depend on the immune system doing its job after the drugs flag the tumor cells... (by the way, you'll realize some of them aren't even covered by Medicare yet, even though plenty are), there’s so much
chemo out there that hits similar but totally different targets. (
The immune system is a massive factor here. Honestly, trying to explain exactly how tumors bypass those mechanisms might be more than this forum can handle.
The realization that your life is on the line, that crushing stress that just shuts down your immunity...
you have to fight.
Relying solely on chemo and looking at statistics? You can only afford to ignore mental and nutritional support if you aren't seriously ill.

dustypilot2 said:Look, it’s all that doctor's fault. He asks my dad how he’s eating, and Dad just says, "Yeah, I eat, but not enough." Then they run a blood test every seven days and realize the guy is down to only 110 pounds. Basically... yeah. Herceg tells him, "Don't worry, we'll get you some nutritional supplements," and then drags that out for two whole months. TWO MONTHS. Pure laziness, honestly. And then, after all that, they have the nerve to tell us that to even get those supplements, you need a specific prescription from a GP—and even if he had it, he still wouldn't have lost that much weight. That doctor was being a total jerk about everything else, too... but whatever. Not worth the breath.

What can I even say? This is just a total disaster.

Sarah Cruz2 said:p.s.
How do I actually get into MD Anderson Cancer Center? Do you need some kind of inside connection? Also, has anyone ever dealt with their family counseling services?

Mayo Clinic
they have dedicated spaces for the American NBA against cancer
info at 555-0199

The League has specific clubs—groups for people who had colostomies after colon cancer surgery.

And since you're a sister, you're technically high-risk (doesn't really matter right now, but the whole family should probably look into changing up their diet, maybe try macrobiotics or something).

Douglas Doyle49 said:Man, I can't even remember, but there's something about bees too...

breast milk