Thoughts on dairy consumption?

driftinggull13 said:There you go again, acting like you just don't get it. It isn't that an organism doesn't need water if you're drinking 50 liters a day—in fact, that would be downright toxic. Does that mean water itself isn't healthy? I feel like I provided plenty of examples in my previous post to illustrate my point. You really ought to try a little harder to follow my reasoning.😉 😁

If my memory serves me correctly, the discussion in this thread centered on consuming 3 liters of milk every single day for one's entire life. Now, let’s assume we are talking about 3.2% milk, which works out to roughly 96 grams of milk fat. One might suggest that such an amount is perfectly fine for daily consumption, but when I suggested that low-fat milk could be a healthier choice than whole milk, I was specifically referring to those massive quantities. Of course, having a single glass of whole milk a day is hardly an issue, but 3 liters?! Following a certain line of logic, if you are already committed to drinking 3 liters, it seems more sensible to take in only 27 grams of fat rather than 96. I was focusing strictly on the context of this specific conversation, whereas you seem to have drifted off into grand lectures about what constitutes healthy versus unhealthy food, or even stories about hungry Africans... To be quite honest, I am entirely uninterested in your definitions of "healthy" or "unhealthy" eating, especially given your particular brand of nutritional expertise; I am still stuck on your assertion that something is inherently healthier simply because it contains fewer calories, using, for instance, average-weight Europeans as our baseline.😬

I see people are shamelessly overstepping boundaries again. :mad rolajz:

@placidowl6/">@@placidowl6:

Eating 5 eggs a day means you're hitting about 1g of cholesterol. The daily recommended limit is usually around 300mg. You've basically tripled it just by snacking on eggs alone...

Look, I’m just passing along what I’ve read, I’m not claiming the math nerds who calculated this are infallible or anything. But hey, the USDA actually carries some weight when it comes to this kind of data in my book.

Is there even a reason why you feel like you gotta smash five eggs every single day?

driftinggull13 said:THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS UNHEALTHY FOOD

What about Coca-Cola? Or gummy bears? 😁 😁 😁

on topic: Oh sureeeee, just go ahead and chug three liters of it. Throw in a Coke while you're at it—I bet you won't feel a thing. 👍

feralbadger8 said:Alright, driftinggull13, just do me a favor and tell me—what's the actual functional value of even a single gram of saturated fat from milk? (Other than just adding calories for Africans, obviously.)

And what exactly do you mean by "functional value"? Are we talking kilojoules or just calories...

Steven Green2 said:If I recall correctly, we were talking about drinking 3 liters of milk every single day for your entire life here. So let's say you go with 3.2% fat, which works out to about 96 grams of milk fat. You’re trying to tell me that’s somehow fine for daily consumption? When I mentioned that low-fat milk might be better than whole milk, I was specifically talking about consuming massive quantities like that. Look, having a glass of whole milk once in a while isn't the issue, but 3 liters?! By some twisted logic, if you're already downing 3 liters, shouldn't you aim for 27 grams of fat instead of 96? I was looking at what was happening in this thread—while you were busy lecturing everyone about "healthy" versus "unhealthy" food and starving people in Africa... Honestly, I don't care how you nutritionists define healthy or unhealthy food, because I still can't get past your claim that something is "healthier" just because it has fewer calories... we could look at a typical, average-weight European for example.😬

I have no clue what an "average European" even looks like to you... are we talking about someone in London, or maybe somewhere in Eastern Europe? And why do you feel the need to bring up starving people in Africa? Just look around you, man... seriously. Less than 5% of the population is obese, yet over 40% of the world is facing malnutrition. Obesity is a Western disease that's really only spiked in the last 20 or 30 years. People have been drinking liters upon liters of full-fat milk—like buffalo or mare milk, which has way more fat than cow milk—for literally thousands of years, and now we have these "geniuses" who sit on their couches all day coming out of nowhere to claim it's an unhealthy food. Give me a break. Change your lifestyle instead of declaring milk to be "unhealthy." And how are you supposed to know the context of the guy who started this "unhealthy" thread? For all we know, he’s a marathon runner or a pro athlete. Someone like that could eat half a kilo of fat a day and wouldn't gain a pound or see their cholesterol spike. The only thing that actually matters is the ratio of intake to expenditure... everything else is just mindless noise. Listen, arguing like this is pointless, and I'll say it for the third and final time: there is no such thing as "unhealthy food," there is only "unhealthy eating." If you weigh 300 pounds, even an apple is basically just calories to you.
I'm done arguing about this.

And what’s the actual practical value of unsaturated fats? It's just energy either way.

If you want a perfect example of how people obsess over the "dangers" of fat, look at the dockworkers in NY. They traditionally eat foods loaded with cholesterol, yet there isn't a shred of evidence that it's causing them issues.

But then again, those guys are actually moving, while the modern man spends his entire life glued to a chair. Is a different type of fat really going to save you if you spend all day sitting still?

So, slycrane94, you're telling me the only actual value in all those fats is just pure energy?

I honestly haven't the slightest clue who this supposed "average European" is that you're referring to. Are we talking about someone in Ukraine, Moldova, or perhaps London? And really, do you truly believe one needs to trek all the way to Africa to find starving people? Just look around you, my friend. Globally speaking, less than 5% of the population deals with obesity, whereas over 40% suffer from malnutrition. Obesity is essentially a modern Western affliction that has only really taken hold in the last twenty or thirty years. For millennia, people have been consuming vast quantities of full-fat milk—let’s say from buffalo or mares, which are incredibly high in milk fat—and now we have these sedentary geniuses popping up out of nowhere, complaining that it's an unhealthy food source. Give me a break. Instead of declaring milk "unhealthy," perhaps we should focus on changing our lifestyle habits. Besides, how can you be certain about the health status of the individual who started this thread by calling things unhealthy? What if he happens to be a marathon runner or a highly active athlete? Such a person could consume half a pound of fat daily without gaining an ounce or seeing their cholesterol spike. Ultimately, it is merely the ratio of caloric intake to expenditure that matters; everything else is just unnecessary hysterics. Listen, arguing this point is quite futile; for the third and final time, there is no such thing as "unhealthy food," there is only unhealthy eating patterns. If you weigh 300 pounds, even an apple becomes a source of excess calories.
I find I have no desire to dwell on this matter any longer.

If I were to venture a guess, I would say the person in question is into bodybuilding. An identical thread with the exact same wording was launched over on a fitness forum, which strongly implies... 😬 Looking back at it now, I find myself agreeing with your sentiment; you simply made the assumption that the man was a marathon runner. 😁 And that is perfectly fine to assume. However, if his primary objective is what you first mentioned, then that healthy, full-fat milk might not be the best recommendation for him.
By the way, I never actually claimed that full-fat milk is unhealthy; I merely suggested that low-fat milk is a better choice for my specific sport and lifestyle—to put it more precisely, it causes me less "harm." Yet, you seem to fly straight toward the extremes, jumping from 400-pound giants to people who are nothing but skin and bones.😉

slycrane94 said:But what is the actual functional value of unsaturated fats? Well, they provide energy either way, don't they?

"Primarily, saturated fatty acids act as an energy source. On the other hand, unsaturated fatty acids are essential for the 'construction' of various tissues and cellular structures. Beyond just being a component of all cell membranes, they play a vital role in transporting fat-soluble vitamins like A, D, E, and K. Furthermore, body fat serves its own unique purpose by cushioning and protecting organs such as the liver, heart, and kidneys; it also plays a part in how we retain calcium in our teeth and bones because it facilitates the transport of Vitamin D..."

placidowl6 said:Maybe three liters of milk is pushing it...

I read somewhere that athletes need anywhere from 1 to 2.7 grams of calcium daily.

If I were drinking three liters of milk a day, the math suggests I'd be hitting 3.6 grams (at 1.2g per liter). That’s about a gram over the limit, especially since I eat five eggs every morning, and yolks are loaded with calcium too.

I'm worried this kind of calcium overload might lead to kidney stones. What do you all think?

I'm not entirely convinced that kidney stones are caused by excessive calcium intake...

Steven Green2, tell me, what's the actual purpose of cholesterol in the body?
And what about those folks in the Arctic? They aren't exactly dropping dead from heart disease.

Michael Taylor7 said:Steven Green2, why don't you tell us what cholesterol actually does for the body?
What about the Eskimos? They certainly don't seem to be dropping dead from heart disease.

It is absolutely essential for various metabolic processes within our internal chemistry. It serves as the building block for numerous hormones, including my personal favorite, testosterone. 😎 That’s precisely why I make sure to indulge in three egg yolks every single day. Blah, blah... Do you honestly believe I am so simple-minded that I would recoil in horror from foods containing cholesterol or anything of that nature?! If you are truly curious about the mechanics of cholesterol, I suggest you consult Google. As for the Eskimos—well, frankly, I couldn't care less, just as I feel no particular urge to study Africans, Asians, or Europeans, nor those who are overweight or malnourished... 🙂

Steven Green2 said:You really think I'm an idiot?

🙂

I didn't mean it like that.

Steven Green2 said:And if you're actually interested in cholesterol, just use Google.

Honestly, I trust what I learn in my university lectures way more than anything I stumble upon while searching online. You find all sorts of things on the web—someone misinterprets a study or completely misses the point, and then...

Steven Green2 said:"Saturated fatty acids primarily serve as an energy source. Unsaturated fatty acids are required for the 'building' of various tissues and cellular structures. Beyond being components of all cell membranes, they play a role in transporting fat-soluble vitamins A, D, E, and K. Body fat also protects organs like the liver, heart, and kidneys, and aids in retaining calcium in teeth and bones by facilitating vitamin D transport..."

From what I recall of cell biology, the lipid bilayer consists of both saturated and unsaturated parts.
I also don't remember vitamin solubility being strictly tied to unsaturation. Do you actually have a reliable reference for this? (And don't say Wikipedia.)

slycrane94 said:From what I recall about cellular biology, the lipid barrier consists of both unsaturated and saturated components.
Furthermore, I don't quite remember the solubility of certain vitamins being tied so heavily to unsaturation levels. Do you happen to have a specific reference for that? (And please, don't count Wikipedia or similar sites as a reliable source)

You make a fair point, and I suspect I may have phrased my previous thought somewhat clumsily. When I wrote: In addition to being fundamental components of all cellular membranes, they serve the vital role of transporting fat-soluble vitamins such as A, D, E, and K. Fats also provide a unique protective layer for organs like the liver, heart, and kidneys, and play a part in maintaining calcium levels in teeth and bones by facilitating the transport of vitamin D... I wasn't necessarily implying that we were strictly talking about unsaturated fats. To be perfectly honest, I don't have a formal reference on hand—not even a single one, unfortunately.

Steven Green2 said:I couldn't care less about Eskimos, or Africans, or Asians, or Europeans, or even thin people or malnourished folks... 🙂

See, this right here is where we actually hit a wall. You’re looking at this through such a tiny little lens that your whole take on healthier low-fat milk just comes off as completely clueless. Honestly, you might as well have just said you’re lactose intolerant and therefore all milk is poison... You don't actually have a single real argument to back up that claim, other than just obsessively pointing to yourself—your own lifestyle or whatever you want to call it... I have to say, that "quote" of yours is honestly pretty terrifying to me. I personally could never bring myself to say something like that in any context whatsoever...

driftinggull13 said:This is really where we hit our fundamental impasse. You seem to be viewing this through such a narrow lens, which is why your take on low-fat milk being "healthier" comes across as so incredibly dull. Honestly, you might as well have just claimed you were lactose intolerant and declared all dairy harmful altogether. You don't actually offer a single substantive argument to support your claim, other than essentially retreating into an autistically focused appeal to your own subjective lifestyle choices or whatever it is you prefer to call it. To be perfectly candid, that quoted statement of yours is quite unsettling to me. I personally could never bring myself to say it in any context whatsoever.

I find myself repeating this for the umpteenth time now. I never actually asserted that whole milk is inherently unhealthy. You keep harping on about fats serving as a primary energy source, but if the goal is simply to consume high calories and fats that need to be burned off, there are certainly much more efficient ways to do that than drinking milk—for instance, one could arguably get more caloric density from a liter of oil than a liter of milk. Naturally, I am looking at this from my own particular vantage point, though I suspect the vast majority of people on this forum likely share a similar perspective. It isn't as if this forum is exclusively populated by Eskimos, Africans, or marathon runners... I can certainly agree with your sentiment that there is no such thing as "unhealthy food," only "unhealthy diets," yet I still maintain that consuming three liters of whole milk a day constitutes an unhealthy diet.
Which quoted statement are you referring to? 😕

Steven Green2 said:You've got a point. Maybe I phrased that poorly. When I mentioned that besides being part of all cell membranes, fats are responsible for transporting fat-soluble vitamins A, D, E, and K; they protect organs like the liver, heart, and kidneys through their unique properties, and play a role in calcium retention in teeth and bones by transporting vitamin D... I wasn't strictly referring to unsaturated fats. I don't have a specific source handy, unfortunately.

That applies to saturated fats too, and the trick is needing both types. Not to mention staying active.

Regarding calcium, I’m not quite following how fats help. Does anyone actually know how the calcium cycle works in the body? If fat is required, we can't be talking about a simple calcium ion, since that's hydrophilic—meaning there has to be some kind of hydrophobic compound involved. Is it just a question of which one? Carbonate doesn't seem right.

AxMi-24 said:Regarding calcium, I’m a bit lost on how fats actually play a role here. Does anyone happen to know the specifics of the calcium cycle within the body? If fat is truly required, then we can't be talking about the calcium ion itself, given its hydrophilic nature—which implies there must be some sort of hydrophobic compound involved. I suppose the question is, which one? (I'm fairly certain it isn't carbonate).

I’m not entirely convinced there is a direct link between calcium and dietary fats themselves. It seems more likely that fats serve as the transport mechanism for Vitamin D, which then goes on to regulate calcium absorption, working alongside various hormones to maintain calcium homeostasis throughout the body. That would probably be the connection, wouldn't it? 😉