Thoughts on dairy consumption?

casualfox9 said:And after just one year of milk treatment, they'll end up allergic to every single plant in nature...

Pure nonsense is truly untouchable—I mean, really... if that were true, why am I not allergic to anything? I've been drinking milk for over 20 years now—pasteurized for about the last 10—and I go through at least half a liter every single day... 🙄

Drew Mitchell55 said:Stupidity is basically sacred at this point... I mean, how am I not allergic to anything when I’ve been drinking milk for like 20 years—pasteurized stuff for at least the last 10... easily half a liter a day... 🙄

Nah, you totally are allergic. To pretty much every plant on the planet. You just haven't realized it yet... ☕

🤣

Drew Mitchell55 said:it's all nonsense... I mean, how am I not allergic to anything when I've been drinking milk for 20 years, mostly pasteurized for the last 10... at least half a liter every single day... 🙄

Well, that’s an easy one right there, you just aren't drinking enough of it. You need at least two point seven liters minimum, and make sure it's pasteurized. Because honestly, pasteurization is the root of all evil...
😍 😉

What kind of cows are you even talking about?
Milk doesn't just grow on the shelves at Walmart
right next to the salad

velvetwolf92 said:Look, don't try telling me low-fat milk—you know, the stuff where they strip everything out—is actually better for you than whole milk.

low-fat milk is healthier than whole milk☕

Grace Rodriguez10 I can't even begin to wrap my head around what they're saying here... it's just one thing after another with these people... honestly, I don't know why I even bother reading this stuff sometimes... it's like they aren't even trying to make sense anymore... anyway...
I’ve been seeing people go on about this non-stop lately, and honestly, it just drives me up the wall... the idea that low-fat milk is somehow the "healthy" choice compared to full-fat is just one of those things that makes you want to stare at a wall for an hour. It’s like we collectively decided decades ago that fat was the enemy without actually sitting down to look at the science, and now we're all just living in this weird, processed reality where everything has been stripped down until there's nothing left but water and disappointment... I don't know, maybe I'm just getting old and cranky, but it feels like we're constantly being told to fear the very things our bodies actually need to function properly... turns out, when you take the cream out, you're often just left with a bunch of additives and sugar to make it taste less like cardboard... it's exhausting...☕

That’s just not how it works, because if we’re following that same broken logic, then water is somehow "healthier" than low-fat milk, or maybe eating sand is better than eating a salad... since you know, sand... doesn't have any calories...😉 😬

I drink at least a quart of milk a day, and even when I burn a few calories on a couple of pizzas here and there—which isn't an everyday thing, just a few times a month—I haven't dealt with a single allergy or issue in the 25 years I've been doing this.

So, even if the sample size is small, it seems to me that the idea that milk is toxic is just nonsense cooked up by failed doctors-in-training. If nothing else, shouldn't we consider that the human body has been adapted to dairy for roughly 20,000 years? That's a long enough stretch of time to figure out if something doesn't suit you.

driftinggull13 said:That's not how it works, because if we follow that line of reasoning, you might as well say water is healthier than low-fat milk, or even that sand is better than a salad just because sand... well, it doesn't have any calories.😉 😬

I struggle to see how caloric density alone dictates whether something is nutritious or not. In my view, low-fat milk is actually a healthier choice than whole milk specifically because it reduces the dairy fat content. You see, milk fat is a saturated fat, and from where I stand regarding overall wellness, those are really the least desirable fats to include in one's diet. Honestly, the body doesn't truly require them, even in tiny amounts.😉

So this Mercola guy you're talking about says:

'It is equally important to consider that reduced-fat, low-fat, or fat-free versions of milk are virtually void of metabolically beneficial vitamin D and calcium.'

Wait, so am I just totally clueless when it comes to how they even make low-fat milk?! Seriously, can someone please break this down for me... I'm lost here.

Steven Green2 said:What does calorie count even have to do with whether something is healthy or not?! Low-fat milk is obviously better than whole milk just because there's less dairy fat involved. Dairy fat is a saturated fat, and from a health standpoint, it’s one of the least desirable things you can put in your diet. Your body doesn't need it at all, not even in tiny amounts. 😉

Oh, please, give me a break... since when did having saturated fats in your diet become "unhealthy"? Maybe if you were, I don't know, carrying 400 pounds and never leaving your couch—I'm exaggerating, obviously—it might matter, but otherwise... Saturated fats are a fundamental part of nutrition and they show up in tons of animal-based foods, so what, does that make all those foods bad too? I bet someone starving in Africa or Asia would get way more satisfaction out of whole milk than low-fat stuff just because of the calories alone... At the end of the day, there aren't really "unhealthy foods," there's just unhealthy ways of eating. Whatever... 😉

feralbadger8 said:So, this Mercola guy of yours is claiming:

'It is equally important to consider that reduced-fat, low-fat, or fat-free versions of milk are virtually void of metabolically beneficial vitamin D and calcium.'

Apparently, I’ve been totally clueless about how they make low-fat milk all this time?! Someone please walk me through this logic here.

Look, calcium levels in milk don't actually care about the fat content. And milk isn't some natural powerhouse of Vitamin D regardless of the fat percentage—that stuff is just added back in later. Real Vitamin D is found naturally in things like fish oils. What this guy is getting at is that the synthetic Vitamin D they dump into milk isn't doing much for us because it's basically 🙄. Honestly, the modern epidemic of rickets kind of backs up his theory 😁
.

driftinggull13 said:I’m telling you, someone starving in Africa or Asia would get way more satisfaction out of whole milk than skim just because of the calories.

You definitely sold me on that point about people starving in Africa. But we aren't starving, and we aren't in Africa. In fact, about 50% of Americans are overweight. So by your logic, they should probably be sticking to low-calorie milk.

Terry Hernandez6, thanks. 😁

Regarding all that talk about saturated fats, here’s a little snippet from mayoclinic.com:

In addition, the USDA and HHS recommend these upper limits for saturated fat and dietary cholesterol for healthy adults:

Saturated Fat - Less than 10 percent of your total daily calories

Honestly, I think Steven Green2 hit the nail right on the head...

Grace Rodriguez10 said:You convinced me (regarding those starving people in Africa). But we aren't hungry, and we aren't in Africa. Besides, about 50% of Europeans are overweight. So, according to your logic, lower-calorie milk is better for them.

No, absolutely not, it's actually the exact opposite... I'm telling you, there is NO SUCH THING as unhealthy food, there is only UNHEALTHY EATING. Full-fat milk is perfectly healthy and good, but if you're just gorging yourself on fat, then it isn't—but then nothing else with fat would be healthy either, right? It has nothing to do with the milk itself... Is that clear enough now?😉
It’s the same way you could claim milk is unhealthy just because some people are lactose intolerant. For them, sure, it's not healthy, but for everyone else, it is. Same thing goes for saying strawberries are unhealthy just because some people have allergies. It's a stupid argument, obviously.
Just like that nonsense about "healthier" low-fat milk.😁 😛

driftinggull13 said:Oh, please, don't be ridiculous—wouldn't it actually be healthier to include saturated fats in your diet? Perhaps if you were, say, weighing 400 pounds and rarely leaving your couch—I'm exaggerating, of course—you might feel differently. Saturated fats are a fundamental part of nutrition and are found in countless animal products, so what exactly does that imply about those foods being unhealthy? I am quite certain that someone facing hunger in Africa or Asia would find far more satisfaction in whole milk than in low-fat versions, simply because of the caloric density. Ultimately, there are no inherently "unhealthy" foods; there is only an unhealthy way of eating. Cheers.😉

Well, by all means, go ahead and champion saturated fats and indulge to your heart's content. Just try not to act surprised one day when you start seeing issues with your total cholesterol levels in your blood plasma. My point was simply that the body doesn't strictly require saturated fats and that they can be detrimental to your health. Please, feel free to proceed as you wish; nobody is stopping you. 😉

Steven Green2 said:So go ahead, just dive headfirst into all that saturated fat and have a blast... really. But hey, don't come crying to me when you wake up one day staring at some terrifyingly high total cholesterol numbers on a blood test. I’m just saying—and honestly, I've seen enough to know—that your body doesn't actually need that stuff and it's straight-up bad for you. But whatever, do your thing... nobody's stopping you... 😉

hehe, read that again, driftinggull13... maybe this time actually try to wrap your head around it...

Look, here’s the thing—there’s no such thing as "unhealthy food" per se... I mean, if it’s microbiologically safe and won't kill you on the spot, it's just food. The real problem? It’s how we eat. It’s the way we approach our meals, the timing, the sheer chaos of modern eating habits... that's where the damage actually happens. It's all about the lifestyle, man...

Honestly, when it comes to high cholesterol and triglycerides, most people point the finger at "unhealthy eating," but that’s kind of just a side effect... the real culprits are usually these deep-seated metabolic imbalances that were already lurking in your system long before you ever picked up a burger. Man, if you actually saw the sheer complexity of it all—all those biological mechanisms, the endless formulas, the crazy diagrams with arrows and circles everywhere... it’s enough to make your head spin. Just a total mess... 😁 😬

rustymoose54 said:Essentially, when you're looking at high cholesterol or elevated triglycerides, the real culprits are usually those underlying metabolic imbalances already lurking within the body; a "poor diet" is merely an indirect factor that exacerbates things.

But then I find myself wondering—if that’s the case, how is it that some people manage to completely reset their numbers back to a perfect baseline after dealing with cholesterol issues, all thanks to addressing that supposed "indirect influence" alone?! Does that mean those deep-seated physiological imbalances just magically resolve themselves on their own? 🙂

Steven Green2 said:Oh sure, just go ahead and gorge yourself on saturated fats and have a blast. But don't come crying to me when you wake up one day facing massive cholesterol issues in your blood plasma... I was simply pointing out that the body doesn't actually need saturated fats and that they're bad for you. Be my guest though, nobody's stopping you. 😉

See, this is exactly what I mean... you just don't get it, you really don't. It's like saying the body doesn't need water because if you drank 50 gallons a day it would actually kill you. Does that suddenly make water unhealthy? I think I made my point pretty clear enough in my last post, but I guess you have to actually put in some effort to follow along...😉 😁

Maybe three liters of milk is overkill.

I was reading somewhere that athletes need between 1 and 2.7 grams of calcium a day.

If I’m knocking back 3 liters of milk daily—and since there's about 1.2g of calcium per liter, that puts me at 3.6g total—plus I eat five eggs every single morning which are also loaded with calcium in the yolks...

I'm honestly worried that much extra calcium might trigger kidney stones or something. What do you guys think?

Alright, driftinggull13, just do me a favor and tell me—what’s the actual damn nutritional value of even a single gram of saturated fat from milk?
(Other than just providing extra calories for Africans.)