- Aug 6, 2007
So says youmitosis said:I'm not sure where to start with your post but probably with your first comment that there are better foods than milk to top up your glycogen levels. But its about the only part of your post that is correct.
Most hormones given to animals are broken down in the liver (as are antibiotics). Amounts appearing in milk are minimal. Antibiotics given routinely to ruminants affect their ability to break down their food in the rumen (which utilises microbes for digestion of food). Whether an anitbiotic works or not does not effect its rate of breakdown.
You don't get any flora from cows milk. It is a sterile substance when it leaves the cow. Any microbes in it appear there during collection and processing. Therefore microbes present in or on the cow can have no effect on the person drinking its milk.
Your are partly correct when you say that there are resident flora in and on us that help protect us from harmful microbes but you have greatly exaggerated their significance - and nothing about milk will change any of their populations.
Enzymes are proteins. Proteins are not absorbed whole (except globular protein in newborn infants) but broken down into amino acids, aborbed then reassembled by cells in the body. Enzymes in the diet have no direct impact on enzymes produced by or available to the body.
The main reason why milk is not a good enery drink is because of the fat content. 500mL of whole milk contains nearly 1/2 the fat needs for an adult female and about 1/3 for an adult male.
And the claim about mucus. Old wives tale.
If you are seriously studying nutrition you have a long way to go.
And your credentials are?
Here are some interesting facts about milk. Medically proven and research-supported: Much of this research and facts can be located at notmilk.com
Milk contains 59 hormones and Of those 59 hormones one is a powerful GROWTH hormone called Insulin- like Growth Factor ONE (IGF-1). By a freak of nature it is identical in cows and humans. Consider this hormone to be a "fuel cell" for any cancer... (the medical world says IGF-1 is a key factor in the rapid growth and proliferation of breast, prostate and colon cancers, and we suspect that most likely it will be found to promote ALL cancers).
IGF-1 is a normal part of ALL milk... the newborn is SUPPOSED to grow quickly! What makes the 50% of obese American consumers think they need MORE growth? Consumers don't think anything about it because they do not have a clue to the problem... nor do most of our doctors.
80% of the protein in milk is casein. Casein is a powerful binder... a
polymer used to make plastics... and a glue that is better used to make
sturdy furniture or hold beer bottle labels in place. It is in
thousands of processed foods as a binder... as "something" caseinate.
Casein is a powerful allergen... a histamine that creates lots of
mucus. The only medicine in Olympic athlete Flo-Jo's body was Benedryl, a power antihistamine she took to combat her last meal... pizza.
Cow's milk is allowed to have feces in it. This is a major source for bacteria. Milk is typically pasteurized more than once before it gets to your table... each time for only 15 seconds at 162 degrees Fahrenheit.
To sanitize water one is told to boil it (212 degrees F) for several minutes. That is a tremendous disparity, isn't it!
ONE cubic centimeter (cc) of commercial cow's milk is allowed to have up to 750,000 somatic cells (common name is "PUS") and 20,000 live bacteria... before it is kept off the market.
That amounts to a whopping 20 million live squiggly bacteria and up to 750 MILLION pus cells per liter (bit more than a quart).
According to Hoards Dairyman (Volume 147, number 4)... 89% of America's dairy herds have the leukemia virus
"Milk is a very strong pollutant: it is about 400 times more polluting than untreated sewage. To put it another way, 1,000 gallons of milk has the same polluting potential as the untreated sewage from a town of 7,000 people." Morlais Owen. Chief Scientist for Welsh Water. North Wales Weekly News. 24.3.88.
So says Dr. John McDougle:
If a patient bargained with me, "I'll give up only one of the first two food groups "meat or milk" - hopes of getting well," my recommendation for almost all common health problems in Western society would be, "You're likely to get the most benefits if you give up the dairy products."
I am sure you are an expert in veterinary medicine and hold a doctorate or PHD.
go here to say you are wrong on hormones:
or here: http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2006/12.07/11-dairy.html
read this about antibiotics in cows milk. If there are none due to the liver, then why are they checking for antibiotics?
Hot Topics - Milk & HormonesConsumers Union says, "Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports, praised a decision today by the U.N.'s main food safety body, the Codex Alimentarius Commission, not to endorse the safety of recombinant bovine growth hormone (rbGH), a genetically-engineered hormone produced by Monsanto that is designed to increase dairy cows' milk output." [From "U.S. and Europe Agree to Disagree on Safety of Dairy Hormone", June 30, 1999].
Consumer Reports ® says, "A greater concern than bGH in milk may be a related hormone known as insulinlike growth factor I, or IGF-I. The IGF-I found in cows is chemically identical to that found in humans. The hormone, produced as a chemical 'messenger' in response to bGH, is the substance through which bGH actually exerts many of its effects on the body's cells. Levels of IGF-I rise in the milk of cows treated with bGH. The degree of the change is unclear; some studies have shown an increase as low as 25 percent, others more than a three-fold increase. It's not clear whether IGF-I in milk can survive the human digestive tract or, if it does, what the physiological effects might be. Both issues need further study.
Use of the hormone bGH may also affect human health indirectly by affecting the health of the cows that receive it. Several studies show an increased incidence of mastitis (inflammation of the udder), reproductive failure, and other health problems in cows given bGH. Farmers are more likely to give antibiotics to cows with mastitis or other infections, and those drugs, in turn, could make their way into milk when used improperly.
In that way, widespread use of bGH could exacerbate a problem that has already caused public concern: the presence of animal drug residues in the milk supply. Over the last few years, several organizations have tested. American milk and reported finding traces of antibiotics in a significant number of samples, nearly 40 percent in one case. Drug residues in milk could theoretically lead to human health problems, including allergic reactions in sensitized individuals and, for some drugs, a hypothetical cancer risk.
At present, drug residues in milk do not appear to present a significant health risk, judging by tests of milk that CU conducted last year. We analyzed 160 samples of milk bought in New York and Wisconsin. In a preliminary screening test - the same test that had formed the basis of earlier reports from other groups - 20 percent came up positive for some antibiotic contamination. But more-precise tests are needed to confirm the presence of antibiotics, measure the amounts, and identify the individual drugs. Our confirmation tests conclusively verified residues in only about 2 percent of the samples. And the few antibiotic residues we found were all within limits considered "safe" by the FDA.
That basically reassuring result is tempered, however, by two offsetting concerns.
First, there is now no adequate Government program to ensure that antibiotic levels in milk will not rise as a result of bGH use, changes in veterinary practices, or other factors. The FDA's new National Drug Residue Milk Monitoring Program, designed to search for antibiotics in milk, is checking only 250 samples of milk a year, far too few to represent the varied national milk supply adequately. In addition, the program tests milk for only a dozen or so antibiotics, a modest fraction of those now in use. A second, more fundamental problem is that for many antibiotics - including some picked up by our screening tests - there are no reliable ways to verify residues at the levels likely to occur in the milk supply. The law requires drug makers to develop analytical methods for detecting residues before a drug can be approved for use in animals. The FDA has not enforced that requirement stringently in the past, and the agency is now struggling, with limited resources, to come up with "state of the art" tests for the most important antibiotics in milk."