9 ms·

Can you elaborate on that?

fmajid 3y ago
It’s utter nonsense, unless you are lactose intolerant. The mutation that allowed adults to digest milk had such a high fitness value it spread from Scandinavia through the human population like wildfire by evolutionary standards. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactase_persistence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactase_persistence
- peteradio 3y ago
  Not so sure if it was fitness perse, have you ever seen a swede drink a glass of milk? Something very very sexy about it.
- adrian_b 3y ago
  Lactose intolerance is not the only problem with lactose. Those who do not have lactose intolerance split lactose into glucose and galactose, which are absorbed. Like fructose, galactose must be converted in the liver. In people where either the conversion is slower or they consume a lot of dairy, galactose may persist for longer times in the body. In such cases there is an increased risk of eye cataract.
bluGill 3y ago
About 1/3 of adult humans can digest milk. For the majority it is harmful. However the other third have evolved to digest milk as adults and it isn't harmful in the same way. It is an intersting coincidence that ability to digest milk as an adult and fluency in English are correlated.
- chrisco255 3y ago
  The numbers vary wildly by race and region. Among people of northern European ancestry, more than 95% can digest lactose. Either way, many dairy products have little to no lactose, including cheese, butter, ghee, heavy whipping cream, Greek yogurt, and whey isolate.
- ASalazarMX 3y ago
  As a Latin American adult, I offer the counter-evidence that most adults I know can drink milk with little issue, while few are fluent in English. The mutation that allows humans to drink milk beyond their infancy spread about 10 millennia ago, way before the Indo-European family of languages was a thing. Edit: Did a little sleuthing. I'm from Mexico, and just learned that half of the Mexicans can't digest milk. Seems like we imported the mutation from the Spanish/Portuguese since the indigenous people are the least able to digest milk. I live in Northern Mexico, and while most of Mexico is a cauldron of mixed races, the further South you go, the more pure indigenous people you can find. That's why in my social circle most people possess the lactase adaptation, but if I lived further South, less and less people would. Live and learn.
  - bluGill 3y ago
    It is a correlation. Most of European decent can drink milk, and most of European decent of leaned English. There is however no relationship between them and so it shouldn't be a surprise that you can find exceptions either way.
- AHOHA 3y ago
  >It is an intersting coincidence that ability to digest milk as an adult and fluency in English are correlated. Last time I checked Scandinavia didn’t speak English, and so is Germany, France, Spain and the rest of Europe, neither as official language nor fluent. Your link between those is silly and incorrect, for one: as said most if not all of European aren’t English native speakers, and the biggest native English speakers are found in North America, specifically in the US, a country that obviously is a mix of all people and ethnicities, even the ones who call themselves “whites” are actually mixed to some degree, so if you consider the fluency in English as your baseline, then Americans from asians roots for example shouldn’t be lactose intolerant while some German dude who barely speaks English is?! That’s idiotic. Second: you are correlating something genetically inherited with something you can learn in the first few years, which is even sillier. If you correlate that with race, then you might be correct, as maybe the majority of caucasians, asians, etc. are/aren’t lactose intolerant, but I never looked at any studies in that regard, but it will make sense at least.
  - bluGill 3y ago
    > Last time I checked Scandinavia didn’t speak English Last I checked the majority does speak English as a second language. The link is of course silly.
chiefalchemist 3y ago
Consider this...Milk is intended to feed baby cows. Humans are not cows. Some cows milk for humans is likely not harmful. But beyond that you're ingesting a cocktail of nutrients and hormones intend for a baby cow. Put another way, just because Big Milk has normalized doesn't mean it's a good dietary decision. Proceed at your own risk.
- p1necone 3y ago
  This is a weird argument. No food is /intended/ to feed humans. Every single thing we eat is just some random bit of plant or animal that happens to be nutritious.
  - chiefalchemist 3y ago
    That's the thing, it's not an argument. Cow's milk is for baby cows. That's biological fact. Full stop. Nothing to argue. Can human ingest it? Yes. Should they? In quantity? Well, other than Big Dairy who has marketed that idea?
    - p1necone 3y ago
      Okay I'll bite. * Spinach leaves are "for" transforming sunlight into plant growth. * Rump steak is "for" moving the back leg of a cow. * Honey is "for" feeding bees. Surely on the "food not for humans <===================> food for humans" scale something that is produced explicitly to feed the young of a fairly closely related mammal is closer to the "for humans" end of the scale than most food? Please note I'm not trying to argue that that you're wrong about your classification of milk not being "for" humans, I'm trying to point out the absurdity of even trying to define food as being for or not for humans in the first place. ================================================= Also talking about "Big Dairy" in this context is a bit silly too. You could definitely argue that milk has been heavily marketed as a "healthy" food in the United States over the past few decades, and maybe considering it to be unusually healthy relative to other foods is a mistake. But trying to argue that humans shouldn't eat it at all while referring to "Big Dairy" is ridiculous - humans have been eating dairy for thousands of years, much longer than modern capitalism has even existed. ================================================= And lastly, saying "it's not an argument, it's fact" is an extremely arrogant way to dodge actually having to justify what you're saying. Don't do that.
cies 3y ago
We lose the ability to properly digest milk after the weaning stage. Some have developed "lactose tolerance" but that's not saying it's great food. We developed "lactose tolerance" in places where the winter was hard and you would get mostly gains+potatoes all winter long: in those scenarios milk (dairy products) is great! But that's "near starvation" from our modern day understanding. We know milk has a lot nutrients, but also can literaly make us sick. 85%+ of the world population is lactose intolerant (the default). It contains casomorphine, which is addictive (so calf follows mum), hence the reactions of dairy addicts in this thread (like to want to take an addicts crack away). Dairy makes our bodies inflame, and promotes obesity. But the dairy industry is verrrry good in promotion. So everyone and their dog know it "healthy and promotes strong bones" (which is bollocks).

It’s utter nonsense, unless you are lactose intolerant. The mutation that allowed adults to digest milk had such a high fitness value it spread from Scandinavia through the human population like wildfire by evolutionary standards. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactase_persistence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactase_persistence

peteradio 3y ago
Not so sure if it was fitness perse, have you ever seen a swede drink a glass of milk? Something very very sexy about it.
adrian_b 3y ago
Lactose intolerance is not the only problem with lactose. Those who do not have lactose intolerance split lactose into glucose and galactose, which are absorbed. Like fructose, galactose must be converted in the liver. In people where either the conversion is slower or they consume a lot of dairy, galactose may persist for longer times in the body. In such cases there is an increased risk of eye cataract.

bluGill 3y ago

About 1/3 of adult humans can digest milk. For the majority it is harmful. However the other third have evolved to digest milk as adults and it isn't harmful in the same way. It is an intersting coincidence that ability to digest milk as an adult and fluency in English are correlated.

chrisco255 3y ago
The numbers vary wildly by race and region. Among people of northern European ancestry, more than 95% can digest lactose. Either way, many dairy products have little to no lactose, including cheese, butter, ghee, heavy whipping cream, Greek yogurt, and whey isolate.
ASalazarMX 3y ago
As a Latin American adult, I offer the counter-evidence that most adults I know can drink milk with little issue, while few are fluent in English. The mutation that allows humans to drink milk beyond their infancy spread about 10 millennia ago, way before the Indo-European family of languages was a thing. Edit: Did a little sleuthing. I'm from Mexico, and just learned that half of the Mexicans can't digest milk. Seems like we imported the mutation from the Spanish/Portuguese since the indigenous people are the least able to digest milk. I live in Northern Mexico, and while most of Mexico is a cauldron of mixed races, the further South you go, the more pure indigenous people you can find. That's why in my social circle most people possess the lactase adaptation, but if I lived further South, less and less people would. Live and learn.
- bluGill 3y ago
  It is a correlation. Most of European decent can drink milk, and most of European decent of leaned English. There is however no relationship between them and so it shouldn't be a surprise that you can find exceptions either way.
AHOHA 3y ago
>It is an intersting coincidence that ability to digest milk as an adult and fluency in English are correlated. Last time I checked Scandinavia didn’t speak English, and so is Germany, France, Spain and the rest of Europe, neither as official language nor fluent. Your link between those is silly and incorrect, for one: as said most if not all of European aren’t English native speakers, and the biggest native English speakers are found in North America, specifically in the US, a country that obviously is a mix of all people and ethnicities, even the ones who call themselves “whites” are actually mixed to some degree, so if you consider the fluency in English as your baseline, then Americans from asians roots for example shouldn’t be lactose intolerant while some German dude who barely speaks English is?! That’s idiotic. Second: you are correlating something genetically inherited with something you can learn in the first few years, which is even sillier. If you correlate that with race, then you might be correct, as maybe the majority of caucasians, asians, etc. are/aren’t lactose intolerant, but I never looked at any studies in that regard, but it will make sense at least.
- bluGill 3y ago
  > Last time I checked Scandinavia didn’t speak English Last I checked the majority does speak English as a second language. The link is of course silly.

chiefalchemist 3y ago

Consider this...Milk is intended to feed baby cows. Humans are not cows. Some cows milk for humans is likely not harmful. But beyond that you're ingesting a cocktail of nutrients and hormones intend for a baby cow. Put another way, just because Big Milk has normalized doesn't mean it's a good dietary decision. Proceed at your own risk.

p1necone 3y ago
This is a weird argument. No food is /intended/ to feed humans. Every single thing we eat is just some random bit of plant or animal that happens to be nutritious.
- chiefalchemist 3y ago
  That's the thing, it's not an argument. Cow's milk is for baby cows. That's biological fact. Full stop. Nothing to argue. Can human ingest it? Yes. Should they? In quantity? Well, other than Big Dairy who has marketed that idea?
  - p1necone 3y ago
    Okay I'll bite. * Spinach leaves are "for" transforming sunlight into plant growth. * Rump steak is "for" moving the back leg of a cow. * Honey is "for" feeding bees. Surely on the "food not for humans <===================> food for humans" scale something that is produced explicitly to feed the young of a fairly closely related mammal is closer to the "for humans" end of the scale than most food? Please note I'm not trying to argue that that you're wrong about your classification of milk not being "for" humans, I'm trying to point out the absurdity of even trying to define food as being for or not for humans in the first place. ================================================= Also talking about "Big Dairy" in this context is a bit silly too. You could definitely argue that milk has been heavily marketed as a "healthy" food in the United States over the past few decades, and maybe considering it to be unusually healthy relative to other foods is a mistake. But trying to argue that humans shouldn't eat it at all while referring to "Big Dairy" is ridiculous - humans have been eating dairy for thousands of years, much longer than modern capitalism has even existed. ================================================= And lastly, saying "it's not an argument, it's fact" is an extremely arrogant way to dodge actually having to justify what you're saying. Don't do that.

cies 3y ago

We lose the ability to properly digest milk after the weaning stage. Some have developed "lactose tolerance" but that's not saying it's great food. We developed "lactose tolerance" in places where the winter was hard and you would get mostly gains+potatoes all winter long: in those scenarios milk (dairy products) is great! But that's "near starvation" from our modern day understanding. We know milk has a lot nutrients, but also can literaly make us sick. 85%+ of the world population is lactose intolerant (the default). It contains casomorphine, which is addictive (so calf follows mum), hence the reactions of dairy addicts in this thread (like to want to take an addicts crack away). Dairy makes our bodies inflame, and promotes obesity. But the dairy industry is verrrry good in promotion. So everyone and their dog know it "healthy and promotes strong bones" (which is bollocks).