I Wonder Why This Number Is Rising So...
Politics0 min ago
I think humans are the only mammals to continue drinking milk beyond infancy. Odd don't you think? Perhaps even a little perverse?
Especially when studies have shown that the consumption of cow's milk can contribute to an array of medical conditions such as iron deficiency anaemia, allergies, diarrhea, gastrointestinal bleeding, sinusitis, skin rashes, acne, increased frequency of colds and flus, arthritis, diabetes, ear infections, asthma and possibly even lung cancer.
It's well documented that milk is a mucus producer and a burden on the respiratory, digestive and immune systems. A fair proportion of the population of the world is lactose intolerant too, so should we conclude that drinking cow's milk is just wrong?
Perhaps I am biased - I was lactose intolerant as a baby and am haunted by memories of being made to drink those little bottles of milk at junior school, which had thoughtfully warmed by the window in full sunshine all morning...ewwww. I avoid most dairy products now. Cow's milk is for calves.
What do you think?
No best answer has yet been selected by Elfin. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.Yuk - Our teachers always warmed the bottles of milk on the radiators & I remember gagging at the mere thought of having to drink it. I later went on to drinking gallons of the freezing cold stuff.
As a sufferer of chronic sinusitis, I only have milk in my tea now. It seems to have done the trick, as it has eased the symptoms. So there must be something in the 'mucus' theory.
Thanks nicola_red for understanding what I meant. I may have waffled a bit in the question but some people have clearly missed the point. Indeed, it was not intended to highlight a health scare. It was just meant to make people consider whether the reasons why there are issues for humans drinking cow's milk could be summed up by the fact that it is (and never was) a natural food for us.
Fruit, veg, nuts etc and even meat are all within the realms of "natural" in terms of evolution, but the milk of another animal is anomolous, I think.
Of course it is peoples' choice whether to have dairy products or not, but having had this conversation with a few people (and seeing some of the responses on here), I am surprised to note that some people are overtly offended by the suggestion, to the point of being aggressive.
Think of it in terms of other food problems associated with the crossing of natural boundaries (e.g. those well-televised illnesses to do with farmed animals - herbivores - being fed on the remains of their own and other species).
you'll find it's not a planet wide thing tho. In the Orient, very little milk is drunk, infact very few dairy products consumed. but then, I'm not mad on the idea of raw fish, so each to their own.
As for what is 'natural' to consume.....well you could take a look in any kitchen cupboard or larder anywhere in the UK and find it stapped full of 'unnatural' things, even tho most whoelsome and roganic families will have some processed and mucked about with foods in there. I think your point is a little odd, if I'm being honest.
Yes jills, and the reason certain races of people generally don't drink milk is because they are largely lactose intolerant! The same is true of people of African, Native N. American and Asian origins.
Whether or not we eat processed foods in general is a slightly different issue. Most of these are at least derived from natural human food ingredients, notwithstanding the processing and chemical additives etc.
For many years, in Europe and the US, milk has been marketed (rather vigorously) as both good for us and natural. We are forced to drink it as babies and we are fully encouraged to carry it on lest all our teeth fall out and our bones crumble. People don't seem to question whether or why it might not be all it's cracked up to be, which is why I thought I would.
I don't see what's odd about that.
Milk is one of the most nutrient-dense foods available to humans who are smart enough to consume it. For someone with no nutrition training to try and dissuade people from using it in order to promote their own ideological agenda is completely irresponsible.
http://www.macrodiet.com/Contributors/MacDonald-IsMilkGood.shtml
Well done Laura_sakura for investigating it at least. But note that the article in question is written by a dairy farmers' representative who clearly has a commercial interest.
Some of it is inaccurate and some of the arguments are weak, but there are some interesting points there, including the bit about cereal grain. A quick look at the concepts behind the Blood Type Diet supports and explains the cereal grain theory rather well and I believe there is some truth in it. Anyone who gets bloated after eating bread should take a look. But that's another story.
Note too that I'm not (and never have been) on a special diet of any kind (other than not drinking milk but that's because I don't like it), I have never had a weight problem and I'm not suffering from any illnesses. So I'm not a diet-obsessive or a hypochondriac - I'm just interested in the origin of food and the changing trends throughout our evolution.
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.