driftinggull13 said:The issue isn't calories. The issue is lazy people who don't want to get off their asses and work out, not the milk itself.😉
Sure, you can burn off calories through physical activity.
But ask your grandma how much milk a household actually gets when there are only two cows in the barn. First, the calf gets fed, then the kids, and whatever is left over goes toward cream, butter, yogurt, or cheese...
How much milk do adults actually manage to consume in a day? How much cheese are they really putting on a slice of bread before heading out to work the fields?
(If you don't have a grandma to ask, I'll answer for her: 😬 ) Not much.
Back in the day, when people were actually active, they weren't stuffing themselves with calories from dairy products. Even with an authentic Italian pizza, you won't see nearly as much cheese as we see in modern times. Why? It wasn't because some ancient Italian was tracking his cholesterol; it's just that cheese was scarce (or expensive).
In the US, the dairy industry really leaned into promoting the benefits of milk and calcium—think of those famous "Got Milk?" ads where celebrities pose with fake milk mustaches.
Milk is a great source of calcium. But there are plenty of other ways to get calcium without all the animal fats (which, even a bird on the roof knows, you should avoid these days). Like the article points out, olive oil, fatty fish, and walnuts are much better fat sources.
And for protein, peas (including soy), fish, and chicken are better bets.