The pros and cons of milk

Rita said:Especially when I'm buying cheaper milk imported from Ukraine, I find myself wondering why...🙄
electricdriver78, how can you even stand drinking buttermilk? 😲 To me, it’s just awful—it isn't even close to yogurt, acidophilus, or kefir. It tastes way too acidic and greasy for my liking, 🙂 almost like spoiled milk.

I don't know, I actually think it's pretty great...

Do you eat crème fraîche?

That's basically "spoiled" cream, yet I absolutely love it...

But those moldy, funky cheeses? I can't even stand the smell of them...

damien said:It feels weird that nobody’s even touching on the quality of the milk here. I’m honestly starting to think I should just stick to buying milk from that one lady at the local farmer's market...

Because, honestly, with stuff like Borden milk, I’ve heard from ladies working in the labs that it’s almost better to skip it entirely than to drink it...
I really don't think things are any different with brands like Sealtest or our other big producers either...

It’ll probably be a long time before things actually get sorted out and we truly know what we’re putting in our bodies...

Well, maybe it's best if we just don't eat or drink anything unless it comes from some "local farm lady," but then again, you could end up getting food poisoning from her anyway—it's all the same... 🙄

I mean, who's actually checking the milk or the hygiene standards when she's making her cheese and cream?

We don't need to go to extremes, though... our bodies are much more resilient than we give them credit for...

Hey Rita, have you ever stopped to think that milk from developing nations might be cheaper simply because everything else there is so much more affordable... since wealthy Western countries basically pay them pennies while keeping them under their thumb?

damien said:It strikes me as odd that nobody’s mentioned milk quality yet. Honestly, I’m seriously considering switching exclusively to buying milk from that one lady at the local farmers market.

Because—take a big brand like Borden, for example—I’ve heard from ladies working in their labs that it’s almost better not to drink it at all.
I highly doubt things are any different with the other big national brands we see in the aisles.

It’ll probably be a long time before the industry actually cleans things up enough for us to know what we're actually swallowing...

The stuff I buy from grocery stores here in Germany (which isn't any better than what you find in American supermarkets) is basically just colored water to me.

I grew up on my grandma’s homemade milk, so now I buy it directly from local farmers here—real milk in glass bottles.

They’re clean, organized, and they get hit with unannounced inspections several times a year; over here, the laws are incredibly strict and the standards are so rigorous that you can't even slap an "organic" label on a bottle without jumping through hoops.
If I miss the farmer's delivery, I'll grab organic from the store—it's not perfect, but at least the cow ate real food. It wasn't stuck on wet, cold concrete in a dark steel barn alongside a thousand others.

At the end of the day, those are just the compromises we make in life.

Knowing exactly what’s on my table and where it came from is huge for me—it’s why I drive a smaller car (though we can all squeeze in if we pack the stroller and the kid in tight), why my house is smaller, and why I don't always grab the most expensive brand at the supermarket... I just refuse to compromise when it comes to food.

Some pretty scary stats

Look, you haven't actually proven how bad milk is—you've just shown how much damage is being done by mass-scale industrial production.

We really need to make that distinction.

Besides, getting informed is easy enough if you actually bother to look—it's not that hard.

Check out *Fast Food Nation* by Schlosser—and I don't just mean the burgers and fries at McDonald's; I'm talking about those pinkish sausages you see everywhere. That color is totally synthetic—you'll never find anything like that in an organic grocery store. It’s a real eye-opener...

Submarine-ov's post reminds me of the kind of stuff you see on those "animal lover" websites.

(off-topic)

Casey Palmer5 mentioned earlier that physical activity can boost bone density and lower the risk of osteoporosis. That’s true. However, the specific type of activity really matters. When it comes to fighting osteoporosis, swimming is your best bet. Also, there's a new device out now that uses vibrations to stimulate bone tissue growth—honestly, that’s probably the single best option for anyone looking to prevent osteoporosis.

It’s an undeniable reality—those within vegetarian and macrobiotic circles generally view milk as an incredibly unhealthy staple. There is a whole litany of arguments used to back up that specific stance.

From my perspective, it seems we are finally seeing a slow retreat from the old dogma that milk is some kind of perfect, indispensable food group, especially when it comes to infant nutrition. For instance, you see cow's milk being actively discouraged for babies under a year old, and even among breastfeeding mothers, any sign of colic in a child immediately triggers suspicion of a milk allergy. It feels like more and more people, even those who aren't strictly vegetarian, are moving away from the notion that milk is the ultimate source of calcium.

The actual bioavailability of calcium from milk is precisely what fascinates me, yet I can never seem to find a straight answer to the question. There was once a rather heated, intense debate about this on a forum, but I still find myself unable to grasp what the actual truth is regarding how much of that calcium is actually utilized by the body.

shadowfalcon33 said:Casey Palmer5 actually mentioned earlier that staying active can boost bone density and help lower the risk of osteoporosis. And she's totally right. But honestly, the type of activity you choose really matters. When it comes to fighting osteoporosis, swimming is one of the best ways to go. Also, there’s this new piece of equipment out there that uses vibrations to stimulate bone growth—which might just be the absolute best option for anyone looking to stay ahead of osteoporosis...

But why specifically swimming?

It all comes down to how specific types of exercise target different parts of your skeletal system. For instance, joggers tend to see an increase in bone density specifically in their legs. On the other hand, swimming provides a more uniform boost to overall bone mass across the entire skeleton.

shadowfalcon33 said:It really comes down to how specific types of sports target different parts of the skeleton. For instance, joggers tend to see increased density in their leg bones, whereas swimming provides a more uniform boost to the mass of the entire skeletal system.

Anyway, I'm going completely off-topic here, but life is just unfair sometimes...
I seriously cannot believe this. I spent forever typing out this whole post, filled it with a bunch of links, and then my computer just crashed and everything vanished into thin air 😠
And don't even get me started on the fact that I was getting bombarded by five phone calls while I was right in the middle of writing...

Long story short, though, most of what I've been reading points toward "high impact and weight-bearing activities" being the absolute best way to work out if you want to prevent osteoporosis. Swimming doesn't quite fit that mold for me, since you're basically in a de-weighted position in the water. Sure, it works your whole body, but I honestly think a well-rounded gym routine would be much more effective...

Here is what the clinical guidelines from the UK say (unfortunately, all the links to the studies I found are gone now, and I just don't have the energy to hunt them all down again):
http://www.nelh.nhs.uk/guidelinesdb/...eoporosis.html

Weight training in the form of weight-bearing aerobic training activity and or strength training activity is now recognised as a valid and important intervention in the management of bone health. It is thought that the mechanical stresses that are put through bone during exercise can affect bone density. Weight bearing activity stimulates bone remodelling...

High impact exercise is suitable for those who regularly exercise. A lower impact programme of exercise is also appropriate especially for those not used to exercise. To be effective all exercise programmes need to be progressive in terms of impact and intensity as fitness and strength levels improve...

Betty Bennett10 said:It’s true—vegetarians and macrobiotic enthusiasts generally view milk as incredibly unhealthy. They back up those claims with plenty of reasoning.

From my perspective, the idea that milk is this "perfect food" or an essential dietary staple is definitely starting to fade, especially when it comes to kids. For instance, you rarely see cow's milk recommended for infants under a year old, and even with breastfeeding moms, if a baby has colic, the first thing everyone suspects is a milk allergy. It feels like more and more people, even those who aren't vegetarian, are moving away from the notion that milk is the ultimate source of calcium.

That whole issue regarding how much calcium we actually absorb from milk is what really fascinates me, yet I can never seem to find a straight answer. There was a pretty heated debate about this on the forums a while back, but I’m still stuck wondering: what is the actual truth about calcium bioavailability in dairy?

One of the biggest critics of dairy is the 'Natural hygiene' movement, often referred to as 'Fit for Life.'
Their theory suggests that the nutritional availability of milk—including calcium—is significantly diminished because of the casein. Since cow's milk has much higher levels of casein than human milk, it causes issues for us. That casein curdles in the stomach, creating large, heavy clumps that are tough to digest; a cow's system is built for that, but ours isn't.
Anyway, the human body ends up burning a ton of energy just trying to process that casein, plus it can coat the intestinal walls, which supposedly blocks the absorption of nutrients and calcium.

Now, is that an absolute fact? I honestly don't know. Does anyone here specialize in this field or have some insight?

I usually knock back over a liter a day, sometimes even two. Honestly, I haven’t noticed anything negative on my end. If anything, the real challenge is just finding the desire to keep drinking it all the time.

All this talk about milk being bad strikes me as a bit suspicious. Humans have been consuming dairy for something like 20,000 years; wouldn't it be strange if our bodies hadn't adapted to it by now? And obviously, we're talking about cow's milk here.

As for the quality, that's really up to us. Are people actually willing to pay double for organic, high-quality milk? Most aren't, which is where that whole argument falls apart.

True, though it’s a bit much to wrap my head around the fact that we’ve likely never consumed this much dairy in our lives as we do today.

On the subject of calcium and milk...

For optimal bone health, the recommended daily intake of calcium is 1000 mg for both men and women between the ages of 19 and 50.

A single 8-ounce serving of milk provides about 300 mg of elemental calcium. However, since the absorption rate is roughly 30%, you can expect to actually absorb about 100 mg from that glass.

(Higdon J. An evidence-based approach to vitamins and minerals. Health benefits and intake recommendations. New York, Chicago: Thieme; 2003)

I haven't caught up on the thread yet, so I might have missed this being discussed (it probably has come up), but—as far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong)—some people really shouldn't be drinking milk because they lack the enzyme to break it down properly. For those folks, partially fermented options like yogurt or kefir are usually the way to go.

rustymoose54 said:People who can't handle plain milk because they're lactose intolerant can usually stick to yogurt instead.

That was my line.👍

Betty Bennett10 said:True, though I suspect we've never actually consumed this much dairy in our lives as we do today.

But have you ever wondered what people ate back in the day? Meat used to be a Sunday-only luxury, while milk and dairy products—like cream or cheese—were likely staples every other day.

John Booth said:I wonder what people actually ate back in the day. Meat was probably treated as a luxury reserved for Sundays, while most other days were just centered around milk and dairy products like cream or cheese.

It’s highly unlikely they had this kind of massive, industrial-scale milk production that we see everywhere today.🙄

Even back when everyone kept cows on their own property, they couldn't dream of producing the sheer volume of milk we see coming out of industrial dairy farms today—you only have to look at any local grocery store to see the proof. Every single supermarket is packed with massive refrigerated aisles overflowing with dairy products: milk, yogurt, cheeses, ice cream, puddings—it’s an endless supply of dairy goods consumed in staggering quantities. Honestly, who could ever have afforded that kind of variety and abundance in the past?

So, I was wondering—how much milk and dairy stuff does the average American actually drink these days versus how much they were knocking back back in the day?

I mean, half a liter... even if you count ice cream... doesn't really seem like a massive amount to me

Betty Bennett10 mentioned earlier that cow's milk isn't exactly recommended for kids—apparently, there’s this theory that those foreign proteins in milk can trigger an autoimmune response in the body. Not that it makes milk "bad" for adults or anything, though...