The Dairy Controversey

467
10
Joined Jan 11, 2002
I have read all this controversy and have to say that I'm very perplexed. Hope nobody is hurted by my opinion, but I always distrust of someone who demonizes so much a WHOLE cathegory of food that is so basic for human diet.
Recommending moderation is always good, mainly if you speak of dairy foods that have a relatively high fat and calory content- but calling them "junk food" looks much more like a personal attack than a correct information.
No doubt that dairy products, like any other food, can be substituted with something else without compromising the nutritional balance, but this doesn't mean that they're unnecessary or harmful.
As for the allergies, the fact that many people have an intolerance to some milk component doesn't mean that milk by itself is a poison. Why warning people who's not allergic? The good reasons for including dairy products in the diet are AT LEAST as many as the good reasons for avoiding them, so maybe the truth is (as usual) in the middle.

Another thing...the question of scientific papers. I'm not referring to this specific controversy, but, generally speaking, having found one or two or even ten papers saying "something" means, in itself, less than nothing. The medical literature is endless, and if you look well you can find papers maintaining ANY theory, even the weirdest.
The assertion that most scientific papers are false as they're financed and influenced by the Great Industry is a commonplace and in most cases is untrue. No doubt that the industries finance lots of scientific studies, but publishing them WELL, on a good named journal, is still another kettle of fish. The reliability of a theory must be judged not by the number of papers maintaining it, but by the so called "impact factor" of the journals where they have been published (and as far as I know, believe it or not the most prestigious ones are pretty honest).
In main cases, nature is analogic, not digital...and it's hard to be so absolutely certain of something as someone here seems to be.

Pongi
 
4,483
115
Joined Aug 4, 2000
In America many researchers are busted and brought up on charges for falsifying research results. The researchers, often in the medical field, lie about the statistics in order to line their own pockets with research money for financing their lavish lifestyle.
 

phatch

Moderator
Staff member
9,715
1,176
Joined Mar 29, 2002
It is true to say that most of the world can't digest cow's milk easily. It is false to make global health claims on this other fact.

Most of the world's cultures and cuisines weren't involved with cattle and the ability to digest milk wasn't valuable. So that trait diminished in competition with traits that were more valuable.

Middle and Northern Europeans, a few mid-east groups and so on have a long history of cattle in the culture. These groups do digest milk readily and avail themselves of its nutrients. This means that most of the US and Europe can digest milk readily. These are the areas that drive cuisine and food world wide. That doesn't make their diet the best for everyone. It just represents what they are capable of using as food.

Fact, the two most nutritious foods in the world are milk and eggs. Why? Because their entire design is to feed a growing and energetic entity. This is why they become more dangerous in global populations after they stop growing. It does not mean they should be eliminated by all people.

It means that you should take into consideration your own body's abilities and not base your decision off of data that doesn't apply to you. Yes, most of the world is not easily benefited by dairy. That does not make it an invalid or inappropriate food for the rest of us.

Phil
 
467
10
Joined Jan 11, 2002
No doubt that many researchers are payed to falsify their results, BUT, as I said, a thing is writing a paper and another is publishing it on a reliable journal. You can write all the lies you want, but if you don't publish your paper on a major journal, and if your results are not confirmed by many other following papers written by other researchers (and NOT all the researchers are corrupted!) your lies will have no value. Many scientific papers are s**t, but thanks God the s**t is only seldom published on Nature.
More, I can't see the reason why a fanatic could not falsify his results (maybe acting in good faith) to maintain an "alternative" theory...
Don't know if you Americans read about the Italian "Di Bella case", but if so, you can understand what I mean.

Pongi
 

phatch

Moderator
Staff member
9,715
1,176
Joined Mar 29, 2002
Much is made of the source of funding to discredit a reports reliability.

OK, if a study is bad because it was funded by the dairyers of the world, what does that leave us with? Studies funded by the anti-dairyers of the world. Ambivalent groups wouldn't fund a study either way.

The crux isn't who funded a study, but how the study was structured. Any funding can be properly or improperly structured. That's the importance of peer review, blind testing and open methodology and proper test subject selection.

The argument that the fat of milk ruins all dairy belies the fact that dairy of all sorts is available in non-fat varieties.
 
818
16
Joined Oct 13, 2001
As I have stated earlier , the pendulum swings far to one side and then far to the other . The dairy debates truth probably lies somewhere in the middle . As far as medical studies and published reports just remember that these folks are human also .
There are no magic bullets so maybe you should follow your body and your inner self . Just my opinion .
 
1,006
10
Joined Feb 6, 2002
Ack! Peta. Aren't they the same folks who told the guy who got attacked by a shark that he deserved what he got because humans aren't supposed to be in the sharks home? :mad: I don't take anything they say seriously. Those fanatics would prefer a planet full of animals rather than people. :mad: grrrrr just burns me up! :bounce: :bounce:
 
467
10
Joined Jan 11, 2002
Hmmm...apart from the gross manipulation of the quoted scientific papers (most of whom don't say exactly that "milk is a poison" if you read them well) the site is pretty funny.
A suspect comes to my mind:

Couldn't they be funded by the Soy Industry?

Pongi
 

phatch

Moderator
Staff member
9,715
1,176
Joined Mar 29, 2002
And PETA is a paragon of honesty, neutrality and quality science?

Hardly.

Phil
 
Top Bottom