undereating?

[DrummerDeanna]

Originally Posted by carrie721

^^ what's the pub. date on this?

since people are ****ting themselves over research from brand-name institutions like harvard and yale, here is what i found in eat, drink, and be healthy: the harvard medical school guide to healthy eating, by walter c. willett, m.d., CHAIRMAN OF THE DEPARTMENT OF NUTRITION AT THE HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH (is that clear enough? sometimes i worry that people can't read what i'm writing unless i TYPE ALL SALIENT POINTS IN CAPS). the original pub. date is 2001, and it was just revised following the USDA's "revamping" of the food pyramid.

Ok - but those things have already been addressed! No one is saying Milk should be the main source of anything...and we've all already agreed that NO ONE over age five should drink whole milk - so the fats and sugars thing goes right out the window...

[JazmenFlowers]

Originally Posted by DrummerDeanna

have you seen the one with David Beckham? va va vavoom!

Originally Posted by skcin

frying up my bacon.

bacon. there's another topic. I'm not a big bacon person either. if I eat bacon it has to be undercooked...most people I know like it crispy, but I like it cooked just enough, but not crunchy. I wonder what that means actually, I'm quite picky with my food.

[Miss Vicky]

Originally Posted by DrummerDeanna

NO ONE over age five should drink whole milk

But damn it, it tastes so good!

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by carrie721

^^ what's the pub. date on this?

since people are ****ting themselves over research from brand-name institutions like harvard and yale, here is what i found in eat, drink, and be healthy: the harvard medical school guide to healthy eating, by walter c. willett, m.d., CHAIRMAN OF THE DEPARTMENT OF NUTRITION AT THE HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH (is that clear enough? sometimes i worry that people can't read what i'm writing unless i TYPE ALL SALIENT POINTS IN CAPS). the original pub. date is 2001, and it was just revised following the USDA's "revamping" of the food pyramid.

the copyright says 2006. nuff said.

©2006 President and Fellows of Harvard College.

I guess that comes after your 2001 info yes?

[carrie721]

from the same book:

the dark side of calcium and dairy products

if no one really knows the best daily calcium target, then why not play it safe and boost your calcium by drinking three glasses of milk a day? here are six good reasons: lactose intolerance, saturated fat, extra calories, unneeded hormones, a possible increased risk of prostate cancer, and a possible increased risk of ovarian cancer.

lactose intolerance. all babies are born with the ability to digest milk. some, especially those of northern european ancestry, keep this trait for life. most children, though, gradually lose it as their bodies stop making an enzyme called lactase that breaks down milk sugar (lactose). in fact, only about a quarter of the world's adults can fully digest milk. in the united states, as many as fifty million americans aren't equipped to digest milk. half of the hispanic americans, 75 percent of african americans, and more than 90 percent of asian americans can't tolerate a lot of lactose. for them, drinking a glass of milk can have unpleasant consequences, such as nausea, bloating, cramps, and diarrhea. [...]

saturated fat. an eight-ounce glass of whole milk contains almost 5 grams of saturated fat, or about 20 percent of the recommended 20-gram daily limit. drinking three glasses a day would be the equivalent of eating twelve strips of bacon or a big mac and an order of fries. [...]

extra calories. three glasses of whole milk a day add 450 calories to your diet - about one-quarter of your daily intake allowance. low-fat milk, at just 330 calories, adds a bit fewer, but that is still a lot if the main goal is just to get more calcium.

extra hormones. cows make most of the same hormones that humans make. before farming turned into agribusiness, the hormone leves in milk weren't an issue. today, though, they may well be a cause for concern.

over the years, dairy cattle have been bred to produce more milk. since 1960, american holstein cows' genetic potential for milk production has increased nearly seven thousand pounds for each period of lactation. cows are also routinely milked while they are pregnant, which also keeps milk production high. this is great for cattle farmers andmilk producers, and it helps keep the price of milk relatively low. but it also means that today's milk contains a more concentrated hormonal stew than it did years ago. naturally occurrring hormones in milk include estrogens and progestins, androgens, and insulinlike growth factors, to name just a few. estrogens and progestins can stimulate breast cancer, andtrogens promote prostate cancer, and elevated levels of insulin-like growth factor have been linked with breast, prostate, and colon cancer.

almost ten years ago, my colleagues and i started the growing up today study among children of women in the nurses' health study. the more than sixteen thousand volunteers complete forms on diet, exercise, lifestyle factors, and health much as their mothers do. in this group, the largely hormone-driven condition of teenage acne is more common among milok drinkers. this is important because it suggests that the hormones in milk are strong enough or abundant enough to stimulate glandular tissue such as the sebaceous glands in the skin - and possibly the mammary glands in the breast.

prostate cancer. a diet high in dairy products has been implicated as a risk factor for prostate cancer. in nine separate studies, the strongest and most consistent dietary factor linked with prostate cancer was high consumption of milk or dairy products. in the largest of these, the health professionals follow-up study, men who drank two of more glasses of milk a day were almost twice as likely to develop advanced or metastatic (spreading) prostate cancer as those who didn't drink milk at all.

at first, researchers thought that the connection between dairy products and prostate cancer was due to the saturated fat in dairy products. but results from the health professionals follow-up study, as well as more careful analyses of other data, suggest that calcium might be the main culprit. [...]

breast cancer. early-onset breast cancer (cancer that appears before menopause) seems to be associated with high intake of full-fat dairy products. this is especially the case for estrogen-receptor positive (er+) breast cancer, in which estrogen stimulates cancer cells to grow and divide.

ovarian cancer. about fifteen years ago, harvard medical school researches suggested that high levels of galactose, a simple sugar released by the digestion of lactose in milk, could damage the ovary and possibly lead to ovarian cancer. since then a number of studies have tested this hypothesis. while the evidence isn't conclusive (some studies have supported this notion and other haven't), a positive link between galactose and ovarian cancer shows up too many times to ignore the possibility that it may be harmful.

*please forgive any typos ... a) my broken screen is hard to read and b) i typed all of this out by hand.

[carrie721]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

the copyright says 2006. nuff said.

I guess that comes after your 2001 info yes?

which, as i said, was revised just last year (june 28th, 2005, to be exact, according to amazon). so your info is at MOST a year younger than mine, so you're going to ignore it? okay.

[DrummerDeanna]

Okay - but again - this is nothing new

And we've already determined that Whole Milk is bad!!!!

The prostate and ovarian cancers links are possible links - still nothing concrete and conclusive....

And the hormones...well that issue is greatly lessened in organic milk.

Regardless of what some people think and even do studies on - Milk is a form on nutrients that isn't going to go away. In fact the organic milk industry is GROWING. In a recent story they said they could triple production and STILL not have enough milk for consumption....

That's really here nor there - just sayin'

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by carrie721

which, as i said, was revised just last year (june 28th, 2005, to be exact, according to amazon). so your info is at MOST a year younger than mine, so you're going to ignore it? okay.

last time I checked, 2006 came AFTER 2005. therefore, Im assuming its taking your info into account and dealing with it accordingly. If you want to be the LONE RAT that STAYS on Ambyss' sinking ship, more power to you. Yo HO.

[DrummerDeanna]

Originally Posted by carrie721

so you're going to ignore it? okay.

Uh oh..you're starting to sound like someone else.....

And no one is ignoring it - but there is SO MUCH conflicting info - what do you believe? Apparently people will believe what they want to believe. I think that's the bottom line.

[carrie721]

also, since other people have difficulty with the fact that what amber posted is a "theory" and not "scientific fact," let's take a look at other scientific theories:

*quantum theory
*evolutionary theory
*atomic theory
*cell theory
*theory of special relativity
*theory of general relativity

etc ...

the word "theory" doesn't automatically imply that a concept is built upon shaky ground.

[irishgrl]

Well then, it comes down to AGENDAS. People do what they are comfortable with. They make choices based upon the sacrifices they have to make. The easier the sacrifice, the more virtuous the choice (ya know?) ie: I never smoked so I feel really good about the fact I can tell my Dr. that I dont have a nicotine problem......I never had to pinch pennies so I can feel good about the fact I shop at an organic co-op (and on and on)

[carrie721]

Originally Posted by DrummerDeanna

Okay - but again - this is nothing new

And we've already determined that Whole Milk is bad!!!!

The prostate and ovarian cancers links are possible links - still nothing concrete and conclusive....

And the hormones...well that issue is greatly lessened in organic milk.

Regardless of what some people think and even do studies on - Milk is a form on nutrients that isn't going to go away. In fact the organic milk industry is GROWING. In a recent story they said they could triple production and STILL not have enough milk for consumption....

That's really here nor there - just sayin'

my point is just that the harvard school of public health isn't promoting milk consumption, is all.

Originally Posted by irishgrl

last time I checked, 2006 came AFTER 2005. therefore, Im assuming its taking your info into account and dealing with it accordingly. If you want to be the LONE RAT that STAYS on Ambyss' sinking ship, more power to you. Yo HO.

oh please. the idea that my agreeing with amber makes me a follower is juvenile. agreeing doesn't mean that i didn't question data or that i'm stupid.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by carrie721

also, since other people have difficulty with the fact that what amber posted is a "theory" and not "scientific fact," let's take a look at other scientific theories:

*quantum theory
*evolutionary theory
*atomic theory
*cell theory
*theory of special relativity
*theory of general relativity

etc ...

the word "theory" doesn't automatically imply that a concept is built upon shaky ground.

um....go back and RE-READ Ambyss' posts. She acts as if HER research and HER opinions are the only rational ones to be had. Give me a BREAK!
She has CONSISTENTLY ATTACKED anyone who disagreed with her, even former (or current) friends. If what Ambyss posts is actually "THEORY" then somebody needs to INFORM her of that SALIENT POINT. ASAP.

[DrummerDeanna]

Originally Posted by carrie721

also, since other people have difficulty with the fact that what amber posted is a "theory" and not "scientific fact," let's take a look at other scientific theories:

*quantum theory
*evolutionary theory
*atomic theory
*cell theory
*theory of special relativity
*theory of general relativity

etc ...

the word "theory" doesn't automatically imply that a concept is built upon shaky ground.

So you're comparing a theory on why milk is bad to Quantum and Atomic theory?? Come on now Carrie!

And heh evolution is actually still considered a theory isn't it? They've not found the ever elusive "missing link" I'm kidding - but still....

Don't accuse the pro-milkers or not listening to anything when the anti-milkers are doing the same thing.

Also it IS about agenda...and opinion....

I will read until I'm blind the ways milk MIGHT be bad - but I'm drinkin' it because it's done ma body good

[carrie721]

Originally Posted by DrummerDeanna

Uh oh..you're starting to sound like someone else.....

And no one is ignoring it - but there is SO MUCH conflicting info - what do you believe? Apparently people will believe what they want to believe. I think that's the bottom line.

i guess i want to believe that dairy isn't good for you because of my own personal experience and because what i've read makes scientific sense to me.