13 ms·

The lactose-tolerance mutation

319 points by MaysonL 14y ago

ImprovedSilence 14y ago
I don't know what it is, but I frickin love milk. It's one of my 4 main liquids (water, milk, coffee, beer) I put down a gallon about every 4 days. In college, I'd drink a half gallon a day. Usually when I eat anything that makes me thristy/is a little salty, like red meat, I"ll crush the milk too. Pasta? it's so carby, I've got to have milk to get some protein to level out the glucose release. Hungover? not only does milk rehydrate me, it gives me much needed calories/energy. Why I'm so dependent, I have no idea. Friends and family know to stock up on extra milk when I visit. It's like water to me. I can't explain why, or how I got to this point. edit: Growing up, we always had 2% in the house. From college on I drink skim, occasionally (once every few months) I get 1 or 2%, just to up the fat content (I'm a runner, not terribly concerned with weight gain, more or less trying to maintain body mass...)
- cpher 14y ago
  I'm the same way. I just turned 40, and have been drinking tons of milk my entire life. It's really bad when I travel for business and don't drink much (or any) milk. I go on a binge until my body says "enough." I think I drank 1/2 gallon today alone. And, just like you, I grew up on 2% until college, when I switched to skim. In the college dining hall, I would fill 3-4 glasses of milk with nearly every meal. My wife has teased me about it for years. :).
- bluedanieru 14y ago
  I used to be able to say this, then I went on soy for about a year. Didn't have any liquid milk. Now if I have more than a cup I get sick.
- mertd 14y ago
  > Pasta? it's so carby, I've got to have milk to get some protein to level out the glucose release. How does that work? You get twice as much sugar (lactose) than protein from milk. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=milk http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=milk
  - Volpe 14y ago
    The fat from the milk will slow down the metabolism, "leveling out" the release of sugar. Also lactose takes time to break down...
  - kbutler 14y ago
    The wolfram alpha link shows 18g sugar per cup, other sites (and the 2% label in my fridge) show 12g. And 8g protein plus whatever fat. See also http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/dairy-and-egg-products/71/2 http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/dairy-and-egg-products/7... Milk does have a low glycemic index, so it would reduce the average from the pasta: http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsweek/Glycemic_index_and_glycemic_load_for_100_foods.htm http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsweek/Glycemic_index_and_gl...
  - ImprovedSilence 14y ago
    Protein slows down the release of that sugar though, giving a more level energy supply [1], important for a runner that likes to carbo-load before races. I'd usually try to get some chicken in the pasta, or in my rice and beans as well (The actual effectiveness of carbo-loading is debatable, yes) 1. http://www.livestrong.com/article/500047-what-factors-slow-the-absorption-of-carbohydrates/ http://www.livestrong.com/article/500047-what-factors-slow-t...
- joonix 14y ago
  You don't need milk, you're just used to it. It only takes a couple of weeks without it for you to no longer crave it. Go long enough, and the taste of milk will actually put you off.
  - jrockway 14y ago
    What's the point of this comment? Why should the author give up milk so that the taste puts him off? What benefit would that be to him? And finally, [citation needed]. Milk contains fat and sugar, two things that the human brain is programmed to like. It seems unlikely that not drinking milk for a while would make that stop happening. Anyway, if the OP likes milk, he should drink it. The "obesity epidemic" is not from people having a glass of milk with their dinner. If you don't like milk, then don't drink it. But getting all high and mighty on some comment site about what tastes other people should experience is just plain irritating.
    - papsosouid 14y ago
      >What's the point of this comment? Good question, you seem to be just trying to stir up an emotional argument for no reason. Nobody said he should give it up. Someone simply pointed out that he doesn't need it like he claims he does. >It seems unlikely that not drinking milk for a while would make that stop happening. Try it. Taste isn't just a case of "this contains calories so it tastes good". I like the taste of broccoli, and it has very little sugar and fat. Many people have the experience of not consuming milk for a while, then finding they don't like it any more.
      - seestheday 14y ago
        You might want to be careful with this. I have heard that if you fully eliminate dairy from your diet for prolonged periods you will actually become lactose intolerant. That said, don't take my word, but I advise doing a little research before giving it up completely. It would suck to confirm that after the fact.
        14y ago
- dizzystar 14y ago
  Why did you convert to skim? I don't have any viable sources, but I thought skim was not only tasteless, but not any more healthy than other milk. At least one study has shown skim increases cardiovascular plaque. I don't really like to stand on the stump of "nutritional science," but I always find food choices interesting.
  - Evbn 14y ago
    Skim isn't tasteless, though it tastes less. and many people believe high fat diets cause arteriosclerosis.
  - troels 14y ago
    In general, reducing fat (especially the animal kind) is good for modern people, since we tend to get too much of it.
    - gamache 14y ago
      What you said was gospel in 1990, but nowadays there is much dispute over the role of fat in a healthy diet.
      - ImprovedSilence 14y ago
        Agreed, I thought the optimal ratios of calorie intake is 30% from fat, 30% from protein, and 40% from carbs. fat is 9 calories/gram, and 4 calories/gram for carbs and fat. At least that's what I try to go by when backpacking. but still, at the rate I drink milk, I'd be consuming way too much fat if I upped it to whole...
        seestheday 14y ago
        I believe that the 30/30/40 ratio comes from the zone diet. To my knowledge there hasn't been any scientific verification on why this is the desired ratio. I've seen lots of other people claiming different ratios work better (e.g. some people claiming that 60%+ fat is best). I'm of the opinion that the ratios don't matter nearly as much as food quality. Does anyone have studies/references that can prove me wrong? Eating non-sick/happy animals and animal products just seems to make more sense to me. Garbage in garbage out.
arn 14y ago
Well, as another datapoint to study, asians are said to have a near 90% adult lactose intolerance rate. So whatever beneficial natural selection for Europeans that propagated the always-on lactase mutation, the same cultural/agricultural circumstances didn't hold true for asians.
- wslh 14y ago
  Also there is a growing rate (or alert rate) of allergy to milk protein. Milk allergy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milk_allergy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milk_allergy Understanding and Managing Your Child's Food Allergies: http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Managing-Allergies-Hopkins-ebook/dp/B003TLMRIU/ http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Managing-Allergies-Hopki...
- meric 14y ago
  I suppose that's why when I visit Hong Kong there's so few milk for sale, and at 4 times the price. -- asian who drinks milk daily.
- Pwnguinz 14y ago
  Wow, really? Do you have a source for this? Anecdotally, this seems untrue. I was back in China for 2 months earlier this year and milk (fresh, no less, with expiration days of literally 3 days or less) are sold everywhere. Clearly there is a high demand for milk in mainland China (so much so that there are even brands of imported milk from Germany). This was in the capital of Beijing.
  - jeffool 14y ago
    I consider Wikipedia a good source for conversational information, and to that effect: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:World_map_of_lactose_intolerance.png http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:World_map_of_lactose_... Actually, a little more looking, I think I also found the Yale study it's from. Here's the power point: http://cst.yale.edu/sites/default/files/worldwide http://cst.yale.edu/sites/default/files/worldwide distribution of lactose intolerance, madison 2010.pptx
brc 14y ago
It's an interesting article, on a topic I've read about before. I think the answer is that is no one answer - maybe milk became fashionable, and the guys who had a regular supply of milk attracted more females, and thus more offspring. Maybe it was fashionable and, if being consumed as yoghurt, somehow acted as medicine to a bacteria getting around at the time. Maybe it was fasionable, had medicinal qualities and gave you stronger bones, so you were more able to survive childbirth and things like battles or hardships. I'm just glad I'm not lactose intolerant, so thanks to whoever in my billions of ancestors decided to keep at it.
- maxerickson 14y ago
  I wonder how much of it is due to having cows and harsh winters. (as someone with lots of northern European ancestry and lactose intolerance, it's a fun subject. I can still eat cheese and yoghurt and half-digested milk, so it isn't much bother)
  - brc 14y ago
    Well, the start of dairy wasn't in a cold climate, so I don't know about that. There was clearly some advantage in being able to digest lactose. Maybe it was the occasional winter that had to be lasted through, and having a cow or goat to milk helped out. Anything that weeded out the competition would have done.
    - maxerickson 14y ago
      I was thinking about it in two stages; among the people that are using dairy, the ones that can easily consume fresh milk have better access to calories during a cold winter (which might be a difficult time to make yoghurt or such).
ck2 14y ago
Because cereal tastes terrible with water? Because the dairy industry in the US alone gets $4 billion per year in subsidies from taxpayers?
- _neil 14y ago
  I've found almond milk to be an excellent replacement for cereal. Better than soy anyways.
  - nilved 14y ago
    You should try vanilla Silk, if you live somewhere it's available. Silk is the brand of soy milk that made me realize soy milk is better than cow milk.
    - 001sky 14y ago
      And the sugar content? that might explain it. =/ Almond is drinkable with 40% of the calories.
      - harshreality 14y ago
        There's unsweetened (and unflavored) soy milk. Don't know about unsweetened vanilla soy. For the unsweetened unflavored variety, my local Whole Foods carries Silk, 365, and/or Earth Balance. All three have about 1-2 g sugar per cup, instead of 6-8g in normal (sweetened) soy milk. Some other kinds of milk are worse. I used to know someone who drank goat's milk and some other powdered milk that had 11g and 12g sugar per cup, respectively. My cereal is moderately low on sugar already (6g per serving among 30g carbs), and it took some getting used to it with low-sugar soy milk, but I can't go back now. If I have to use "normal" (really: sweetened) soy milk, which is still only 6 or 7g sugar per cup, I can feel the sugar rush and it makes me mad. It's made me hypersensitive to (added) sugar in most foods. I recently tried drinking some sweetened almond milk and I couldn't drink it. It was awful.
        14y ago
pdog 14y ago
> Various ideas are being kicked around to explain why natural selection promoted milk-drinking, but evolutionary biologists are still puzzled. [...] Those who couldn't drink milk were apt to die before they could reproduce. The success of the lactose tolerance mutation may be partly due to sexual selection[1]. It's been proposed that neoteny[2] is a key feature of human evolution. The ability to drink milk as an adult is a neotenous trait, and it may have been "accidentally" selected for when other beautiful features were sexually selected. David Rothenberg's book, Survival of the Beautiful[3], argues that biologists are sometimes "blinded" by natural selection and ignore sexual selection. --- [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection [2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoteny http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoteny [3] - http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/thoughtomics/2012/10/25/book-review-survival-of-the-beautiful/ http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/thoughtomics/2012/10/25/...
- stcredzero 14y ago
  > The success of the lactose tolerance mutation may be partly due to sexual selection...The ability to drink milk as an adult is a neotenous trait, and it may have been "accidentally" selected for when other beautiful features were sexually selected. Accidentally? Try getting laid when your GI tract is in rebellion. An accident my ass! (Or some ancestor's lactose-intolerant exploding one.)
- zeteo 14y ago
  How, specifically, can sexual selection operate in this case? It would seem necessary that the lactase-production gene, which the article mentions, must have some external effect that's peculiarly attractive. But I don't think it's possible to tell apart lactose-tolerant people by their appearance.
  - redwood 14y ago
    I think he's saying that the lactose gene would perhaps be somehow connected with other genes that might have more direct implications to sexual fitness. E.g. the lactose gene would somehow piggy-back other youth-continuing genetic traits.
6ren 14y ago
> Everywhere that agriculture and civilization went, lactose tolerance came along. Odd that they don't mention physical displacement: invasion, dispossession, death. The gene would likely have coincided with other developments of civilization, such as weapon technology, greater numbers, greater cooperation, specialised soldiers etc. Maybe there's evidence against it, but odd it's not addressed, with a puzzlingly high "selection differential". Another factor might have been sexual selection, if the new folk were healthier looking etc. Note they are talking specifically about the West - agriculture and civilization spread throughout the East without this gene.
zeteo 14y ago
I guess I must be missing something, because there's a rather obvious explanation of the article's central paradox: lactose has calories. To wit, it takes about 10kg of milk to make 1kg of hard cheese, i.e. 6000 vs 4000 calories. So if you have milk directly, instead of cheese, you get ~50% more calories. This would presumably make quite a difference for semi-starving pastoral populations in 10,000 BC.
- malkia 14y ago
  You can preserve cheese for much longer, and use it in much more foods.
  - zeteo 14y ago
    Yes, but, when starvation looms, it seems you're better off having the milk directly (if you can).
    - etfb 14y ago
      That's for sure. By the time you have something halfway edible as cheese, a whole village could have died of starvation. Horrible finicky stuff to make, even with modern refrigeration.
      - 001sky 14y ago
        yhogurt is pretty easy and good for you, too =D
      - jpatokal 14y ago
        Not quite -- fresh cheeses can be made in a matter of hours, and quite dependably. Obviously they don't last as long as the harder kinds, but they're still more stable than milk. Here's one process: http://www.wikihow.com/Make-Paneer-(Indian-Cheese) http://www.wikihow.com/Make-Paneer-(Indian-Cheese)
        etfb 14y ago
thalecress 14y ago
Calories. Cheese has only about 60% the calories of a starting volume of milk. [1] Plus, animals can graze on land you can't farm, and they're very portable. [1] http://westhunt.wordpress.com/2012/01/21/the-indo-european-advantage/ http://westhunt.wordpress.com/2012/01/21/the-indo-european-a...
ekm2 14y ago
Man was drinking milk long before there was a western civilization.
dave1619 14y ago
> Heart disease, diabetes, alcoholism, celiac disease, and perhaps even acne are direct results of the switch to agriculture. Really? A plant-based whole foods diet is probably the best cure out there for heart disease and type 2 diabetes. (google Dean Ornish, Neil Barnard, John McDougall) The author tells a good story but his bashing of agriculture is unsupported.
- parasubvert 14y ago
  There are big reasons to be skeptical about the claims of Ornish, McDougall, et al., especially given the evidence that low carbohydrate diets have in improving major heart disease and diabetes risk factors. I don't agree with the OP necessarily that agriculture led to the above diseases (agriculture is a very broad term), but it is true that these are "diseases of civilization" - such disease have conspicuously shown up under Western dietary influence. Cue Gary Taubes and his book, Good Calories / Bad Calories.
- gnufied 14y ago
  I am no expert but another linked story (http://discovermagazine.com/1987/may/02-the-worst-mistake-in-the-history-of-the-human-race/article_view?b_start:int=1&-C= http://discovermagazine.com/1987/may/02-the-worst-mistake-in...) explains it better why Agriculture had overall deteriorating effect on human health: 1. Early farmers had less access to variety of diet compared to hunter-gatherers. It is hard to disagree with this one. For a lot of Asia, Rice is still the main food and rice on its own contain little more than carbohydrates. 2. Risk of starvation if crops failed. 3. Encouraged crowded societies and deterioration in position of Women. Agriculture forced women to have children often and that in turn impacted their health. I don't know much about Europe but in India Govt. still runs advertisement encouraging Women to have kids at a gap of 3 years or more. I think it is widely held that healthier Mother in general means healthier baby.
  - moheeb 14y ago
    There is no way 'Agriculture' has had an "overall deteriorating effect on human health". I believe the massive population explosion of humans can not be explained without agriculture.
bifrost 14y ago
I have an obvious bias here (I have a cow milk allergy) but I will be very happy when the use of cow milk becomes nonexistant!
- bmelton 14y ago
  Not trying to be obnoxious, but why? I'm allergic to cats, and while I might often joke that they're beasts from hell (seriously, have you ever paid attention to cats? They're preternaturally Satanic,) I don't actually wish them any harm. I know nothing of milk allergies or their severity -- is it so bad that just being near milk will cause you troubles, or is it only ingestion/contact. If the former, I suppose I get it. If the latter, why would it bother you that other people choose to consume it?
  - wslh 14y ago
    Milk Allergy can be dangerous. It depends of the level of sensitiveness. For example a baby can be vaccinated by Glaxo's Infanrix that not say explicitly that contains milk protein and he/she will have rush in the skin, fever, cry all the day and make blood stools. And this is just a small symptom. In the worst case it can have an anaphylactic reaction. So... it can be really serious.
  - Anechoic 14y ago
    As one of the 75% of blacks who is lactose intolerant, I can certainly sympathize with bifrost's post, although I don't want to deprive others of milk products if they enjoy it. As I was growing up, milk, being recognized as healthy part of a diet, was basically forced on me during school - okay, not literally, but the school lunches only provided milk or chocolate milk, the water fountains didn't work reliability, and the cafeteria staff would always look down on my if I brought my own juice. Sometimes it was easier to just gulp down the milk and then deal with stomach cramps/diarrhea during my afternoon classes followed by rushing home to use the bathroom before I exploded. One of the best parts about going away to college was being able to select my own beverages with my meal. If you want to have milk, that's fine with me, just don't force me to have to consume it.
Spooky23 14y ago
Access to milk is a great thing, because you get the calories and many nutrients needed to sustain life, and all you need is a cow, goat or sheep (which is mobile) and pasture. Compare that to cereal crops like wheat or maize or vegetable crops, which require long uninterrupted growing seasons and irrigation. Why is this important? When a troop of rampaging soldiers cuts through your village and pillages everything in sight, you grab your cows and family and boogey out of there. Essentially, you have a mobile food supply. In the event of a drought, you have options as well. With wheat or vegetables, no rain == no food. With a dairy animal, you go kill the guy who controls the next pasture and let Old Bessie the cow feast on the grass. (The other key development was the introduction of potatoes, which remain buried under the ground safe from the rampaging army above -- my Irish ancestors subsisted on potatoes hidden from the English taxman and a cow that lived in the house.) In Europe and the Near East, these things were really important, because there was always pillaging armies marching across the continent. Today, it's unlikely that some Mongol horde is going to loot my supermarket, so I drink milk and eat cheese because they are really tasty.
- pm90 14y ago
  The importance of Milk/Cows has been recognized in other cultures as well. My ancestors found cows to be so important that they deemed it sacred Today, India is the largest producer of Milk in the world, and that goes a long way in providing nutrition to its masses.
  - yogrish 14y ago
    In India, Cow is more of divine than Bovine. As author rightly mentioned "Agriculture-plus-dairying became the backbone", in Indian civilization, it has been imbibed in culture that they both go hand in hand.Their interdependence is well known Cow eats Grass/waste crops, Cow dung/urine is used as manure for the crop and mosquito repellants etc. And outputs of both are enjoyed by the farmer - Crop and Milk products :)
    - mahmud 14y ago
      Why not eat the bulls for meat as well?
bane 14y ago
It's because it's delicious and goes really well in lots of foods. It moderates strong flavors, smooths out acidic drinks, fluffs up eggs among many other thousands of beneficial food uses. Other dairy products like butter and cheese are key to an immense palette of flavors and cooking techniques. Dairy is so delicious that I've even seen people with violent milk allergies put up with the consequences just to scarf down a few bites of custard or ice cream.
- TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
  They can get Lactase pills...
mitchi 14y ago
I hate the taste of milk. Pour yourself a glass of milk and drink some of it. Now go away and come back 5 minutes later. Drink again. It tastes bad now. I quickly changed to Soy Milk and I drank a lot of that instead. However, recently I have stopped all soy products because of the estrogen catalysers in them. I'm now on Almond Milk, I hope I'm good now.
- lwat 14y ago
  Why not just skip the milk?
- joesb 14y ago
  Then why not finish the whole glass?
teyc 14y ago
Perhaps people who tolerated milk reared cows. Given that those who were exposed to cowpox survive smallpox, the advantage conferred would have been huge.
edanm 14y ago
I'm slightly lactose intolerant. Here's a tip for others - you can buy Lactase pills at a pharmacy and take them just before you eat any meal that contains milk. This gives you the enzymes you need without your body producing in it. And it's really awesome. I only started doing this a year ago, but now I can eat many more cheeses, drink milkshakes, etc., without feeling bad. And it happens surprisingly often - every time you want to eat pizza, pastas, etc. Seriously, is you're lactose intolerant, give it a try - it improved my life considerably.
- enraged_camel 14y ago
  There are also brands of milk that include the enzyme. Even easier.
thomasfl 14y ago
It really sucks living in norway with lactose intolerance. Just about every kind of processed food got milk in some form or another in it. Bread, hot dogs, caviar, potati chips. It's mad cow milk disease!
zaroth 14y ago
Wow, mampires... "We became, in the coinage of one paleoanthropologist, “mampires” who feed on the fluids of other animals."
- feintruled 14y ago
  The real irony for me is the instinctual revulsion that many feel about drinking human milk! (As adults, of course, babies sure seem to love it)
WA 14y ago
I read once a theory that the enzyme that splits lactose in the body is destroyed by sunlight. People living near the equator have a much higher lactose intolerance because the constant sunshine destroys the enzyme. Likewise, people in Sweden for example have a 100x higher lactose tolerance, because there's less sunlight throughout the year.
finnw 14y ago
The title sounds like the name of a Big Bang Theory episode
krob 14y ago
I'm lactose intolerant. I guess I'm a caveman :(
Shenglong 14y ago
though not in the Americas, Australia, or the Far East. Does anyone know why some East Asians (such as myself) are lactose tolerant? Is that evidence of interbreeding in the past?
- robmcm 14y ago
  Could be the same mutation, or lack of mutation (depending on the original state of tolerance). However if there is no advantage/disadvantage at a certain point (such as our brains taking over to stop young suckling too long, or ample supply of other foods) then it would remain relatively rare in the gene pool. Perhaps the opposite was true in Asia and your genes managed to survive where the tolerance was an disadvantage?
hcarvalhoalves 14y ago
The ties between agriculture and herding are not clear. Mongols are nomads and have a diet that is basically just milk. I believe the benefit of drinking milk is obvious. A herd can take calories from grass and drink mud, while the human enjoys a source of clean, caloric, nutrient rich drink that can go anywhere. Farmers, on the other hand, can just be ran over, pilled or sieged by enemies.
zacharyvoase 14y ago
Would pasteurization (or lack thereof pre-1862) have any effect on the research?
robmcm 14y ago
It could be a lot more simple, such as a bacteria that grew on cheese, or a virus that milk protected you from. This would support massive switch to tolerance (simple survival of the fittest). It also supports the spread, as a bacteria or virus would not have made it out of the "islands" (himalayas, oceans) and so tolerance wouldn't have been an advantage.
josephjrobison 14y ago
I do value the importance of milk from a survival standpoint, but I think today's milk is a bastardized version of milk our ancestors survived on that they drank directly from the cow. With the whole factory farm system and terrible diets most (American) cows eat, not to mention the steroids and antibiotics that a lot of cows are given, I don't believe the idea that milk is a nutrient packed elixir. Not hating for those who want to feel good about their love for milk, but I don't think today's milk is much more than a treat and baking ingredient.
josephjrobison 14y ago
I do value the importance of milk from a survival standpoint, but I think today's milk is a bastardized version of milk our ancestors survived on that they drank directly from the cow. With the whole factory farm system and terrible diets most (American) cows eat, not to mention the steroids and antibiotics that a lot of cows are given, I don't believe the idea that milk is a nutrient packed elixir. Not hating for those who want to feel good about their love for milk, but I don't think today's milk is much more than a treat and baking ingredient.
ckdarby 14y ago
I feel a little odd drinking this while I drink a glass of milk >_>
goggles99 14y ago
WOW - I cannot believe the false premise this entire article is based on. This is Epigenetics, not mutation or evolution!!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/epigenetics.html http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/epigenetics.html The article itself says >Two hundred thousand years later, around 10,000 B.C., this began to change. A genetic mutation appeared, somewhere near modern-day Turkey, that jammed the lactase-production gene permanently in the “on” position. This is NOT a genetic mutation. The gene was already there but not turned on past the toddler years. I searched this entire page of comments and no one knows or points this out?

319 points by MaysonL 14y ago

I don't know what it is, but I frickin love milk. It's one of my 4 main liquids (water, milk, coffee, beer) I put down a gallon about every 4 days. In college, I'd drink a half gallon a day. Usually when I eat anything that makes me thristy/is a little salty, like red meat, I"ll crush the milk too. Pasta? it's so carby, I've got to have milk to get some protein to level out the glucose release. Hungover? not only does milk rehydrate me, it gives me much needed calories/energy. Why I'm so dependent, I have no idea. Friends and family know to stock up on extra milk when I visit. It's like water to me. I can't explain why, or how I got to this point. edit: Growing up, we always had 2% in the house. From college on I drink skim, occasionally (once every few months) I get 1 or 2%, just to up the fat content (I'm a runner, not terribly concerned with weight gain, more or less trying to maintain body mass...)

cpher 14y ago
I'm the same way. I just turned 40, and have been drinking tons of milk my entire life. It's really bad when I travel for business and don't drink much (or any) milk. I go on a binge until my body says "enough." I think I drank 1/2 gallon today alone. And, just like you, I grew up on 2% until college, when I switched to skim. In the college dining hall, I would fill 3-4 glasses of milk with nearly every meal. My wife has teased me about it for years. :).
bluedanieru 14y ago
I used to be able to say this, then I went on soy for about a year. Didn't have any liquid milk. Now if I have more than a cup I get sick.
mertd 14y ago
> Pasta? it's so carby, I've got to have milk to get some protein to level out the glucose release. How does that work? You get twice as much sugar (lactose) than protein from milk. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=milk http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=milk
- Volpe 14y ago
  The fat from the milk will slow down the metabolism, "leveling out" the release of sugar. Also lactose takes time to break down...
- kbutler 14y ago
  The wolfram alpha link shows 18g sugar per cup, other sites (and the 2% label in my fridge) show 12g. And 8g protein plus whatever fat. See also http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/dairy-and-egg-products/71/2 http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/dairy-and-egg-products/7... Milk does have a low glycemic index, so it would reduce the average from the pasta: http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsweek/Glycemic_index_and_glycemic_load_for_100_foods.htm http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsweek/Glycemic_index_and_gl...
- ImprovedSilence 14y ago
  Protein slows down the release of that sugar though, giving a more level energy supply [1], important for a runner that likes to carbo-load before races. I'd usually try to get some chicken in the pasta, or in my rice and beans as well (The actual effectiveness of carbo-loading is debatable, yes) 1. http://www.livestrong.com/article/500047-what-factors-slow-the-absorption-of-carbohydrates/ http://www.livestrong.com/article/500047-what-factors-slow-t...
joonix 14y ago
You don't need milk, you're just used to it. It only takes a couple of weeks without it for you to no longer crave it. Go long enough, and the taste of milk will actually put you off.
- jrockway 14y ago
  What's the point of this comment? Why should the author give up milk so that the taste puts him off? What benefit would that be to him? And finally, [citation needed]. Milk contains fat and sugar, two things that the human brain is programmed to like. It seems unlikely that not drinking milk for a while would make that stop happening. Anyway, if the OP likes milk, he should drink it. The "obesity epidemic" is not from people having a glass of milk with their dinner. If you don't like milk, then don't drink it. But getting all high and mighty on some comment site about what tastes other people should experience is just plain irritating.
  - papsosouid 14y ago
    >What's the point of this comment? Good question, you seem to be just trying to stir up an emotional argument for no reason. Nobody said he should give it up. Someone simply pointed out that he doesn't need it like he claims he does. >It seems unlikely that not drinking milk for a while would make that stop happening. Try it. Taste isn't just a case of "this contains calories so it tastes good". I like the taste of broccoli, and it has very little sugar and fat. Many people have the experience of not consuming milk for a while, then finding they don't like it any more.
    - seestheday 14y ago
      You might want to be careful with this. I have heard that if you fully eliminate dairy from your diet for prolonged periods you will actually become lactose intolerant. That said, don't take my word, but I advise doing a little research before giving it up completely. It would suck to confirm that after the fact.
      - 14y ago
dizzystar 14y ago
Why did you convert to skim? I don't have any viable sources, but I thought skim was not only tasteless, but not any more healthy than other milk. At least one study has shown skim increases cardiovascular plaque. I don't really like to stand on the stump of "nutritional science," but I always find food choices interesting.
- Evbn 14y ago
  Skim isn't tasteless, though it tastes less. and many people believe high fat diets cause arteriosclerosis.
- troels 14y ago
  In general, reducing fat (especially the animal kind) is good for modern people, since we tend to get too much of it.
  - gamache 14y ago
    What you said was gospel in 1990, but nowadays there is much dispute over the role of fat in a healthy diet.
    - ImprovedSilence 14y ago
      Agreed, I thought the optimal ratios of calorie intake is 30% from fat, 30% from protein, and 40% from carbs. fat is 9 calories/gram, and 4 calories/gram for carbs and fat. At least that's what I try to go by when backpacking. but still, at the rate I drink milk, I'd be consuming way too much fat if I upped it to whole...
      - seestheday 14y ago
        I believe that the 30/30/40 ratio comes from the zone diet. To my knowledge there hasn't been any scientific verification on why this is the desired ratio. I've seen lots of other people claiming different ratios work better (e.g. some people claiming that 60%+ fat is best). I'm of the opinion that the ratios don't matter nearly as much as food quality. Does anyone have studies/references that can prove me wrong? Eating non-sick/happy animals and animal products just seems to make more sense to me. Garbage in garbage out.

arn 14y ago

Well, as another datapoint to study, asians are said to have a near 90% adult lactose intolerance rate. So whatever beneficial natural selection for Europeans that propagated the always-on lactase mutation, the same cultural/agricultural circumstances didn't hold true for asians.

wslh 14y ago
Also there is a growing rate (or alert rate) of allergy to milk protein. Milk allergy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milk_allergy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milk_allergy Understanding and Managing Your Child's Food Allergies: http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Managing-Allergies-Hopkins-ebook/dp/B003TLMRIU/ http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Managing-Allergies-Hopki...
meric 14y ago
I suppose that's why when I visit Hong Kong there's so few milk for sale, and at 4 times the price. -- asian who drinks milk daily.
Pwnguinz 14y ago
Wow, really? Do you have a source for this? Anecdotally, this seems untrue. I was back in China for 2 months earlier this year and milk (fresh, no less, with expiration days of literally 3 days or less) are sold everywhere. Clearly there is a high demand for milk in mainland China (so much so that there are even brands of imported milk from Germany). This was in the capital of Beijing.
- jeffool 14y ago
  I consider Wikipedia a good source for conversational information, and to that effect: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:World_map_of_lactose_intolerance.png http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:World_map_of_lactose_... Actually, a little more looking, I think I also found the Yale study it's from. Here's the power point: http://cst.yale.edu/sites/default/files/worldwide http://cst.yale.edu/sites/default/files/worldwide distribution of lactose intolerance, madison 2010.pptx

brc 14y ago

It's an interesting article, on a topic I've read about before. I think the answer is that is no one answer - maybe milk became fashionable, and the guys who had a regular supply of milk attracted more females, and thus more offspring. Maybe it was fashionable and, if being consumed as yoghurt, somehow acted as medicine to a bacteria getting around at the time. Maybe it was fasionable, had medicinal qualities and gave you stronger bones, so you were more able to survive childbirth and things like battles or hardships. I'm just glad I'm not lactose intolerant, so thanks to whoever in my billions of ancestors decided to keep at it.

maxerickson 14y ago
I wonder how much of it is due to having cows and harsh winters. (as someone with lots of northern European ancestry and lactose intolerance, it's a fun subject. I can still eat cheese and yoghurt and half-digested milk, so it isn't much bother)
- brc 14y ago
  Well, the start of dairy wasn't in a cold climate, so I don't know about that. There was clearly some advantage in being able to digest lactose. Maybe it was the occasional winter that had to be lasted through, and having a cow or goat to milk helped out. Anything that weeded out the competition would have done.
  - maxerickson 14y ago
    I was thinking about it in two stages; among the people that are using dairy, the ones that can easily consume fresh milk have better access to calories during a cold winter (which might be a difficult time to make yoghurt or such).

ck2 14y ago

Because cereal tastes terrible with water? Because the dairy industry in the US alone gets $4 billion per year in subsidies from taxpayers?

_neil 14y ago
I've found almond milk to be an excellent replacement for cereal. Better than soy anyways.
- nilved 14y ago
  You should try vanilla Silk, if you live somewhere it's available. Silk is the brand of soy milk that made me realize soy milk is better than cow milk.
  - 001sky 14y ago
    And the sugar content? that might explain it. =/ Almond is drinkable with 40% of the calories.
    - harshreality 14y ago
      There's unsweetened (and unflavored) soy milk. Don't know about unsweetened vanilla soy. For the unsweetened unflavored variety, my local Whole Foods carries Silk, 365, and/or Earth Balance. All three have about 1-2 g sugar per cup, instead of 6-8g in normal (sweetened) soy milk. Some other kinds of milk are worse. I used to know someone who drank goat's milk and some other powdered milk that had 11g and 12g sugar per cup, respectively. My cereal is moderately low on sugar already (6g per serving among 30g carbs), and it took some getting used to it with low-sugar soy milk, but I can't go back now. If I have to use "normal" (really: sweetened) soy milk, which is still only 6 or 7g sugar per cup, I can feel the sugar rush and it makes me mad. It's made me hypersensitive to (added) sugar in most foods. I recently tried drinking some sweetened almond milk and I couldn't drink it. It was awful.
      - 14y ago

pdog 14y ago

> Various ideas are being kicked around to explain why natural selection promoted milk-drinking, but evolutionary biologists are still puzzled. [...] Those who couldn't drink milk were apt to die before they could reproduce. The success of the lactose tolerance mutation may be partly due to sexual selection[1]. It's been proposed that neoteny[2] is a key feature of human evolution. The ability to drink milk as an adult is a neotenous trait, and it may have been "accidentally" selected for when other beautiful features were sexually selected. David Rothenberg's book, Survival of the Beautiful[3], argues that biologists are sometimes "blinded" by natural selection and ignore sexual selection. --- [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection [2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoteny http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoteny [3] - http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/thoughtomics/2012/10/25/book-review-survival-of-the-beautiful/ http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/thoughtomics/2012/10/25/...

stcredzero 14y ago
> The success of the lactose tolerance mutation may be partly due to sexual selection...The ability to drink milk as an adult is a neotenous trait, and it may have been "accidentally" selected for when other beautiful features were sexually selected. Accidentally? Try getting laid when your GI tract is in rebellion. An accident my ass! (Or some ancestor's lactose-intolerant exploding one.)
zeteo 14y ago
How, specifically, can sexual selection operate in this case? It would seem necessary that the lactase-production gene, which the article mentions, must have some external effect that's peculiarly attractive. But I don't think it's possible to tell apart lactose-tolerant people by their appearance.
- redwood 14y ago
  I think he's saying that the lactose gene would perhaps be somehow connected with other genes that might have more direct implications to sexual fitness. E.g. the lactose gene would somehow piggy-back other youth-continuing genetic traits.

6ren 14y ago

> Everywhere that agriculture and civilization went, lactose tolerance came along. Odd that they don't mention physical displacement: invasion, dispossession, death. The gene would likely have coincided with other developments of civilization, such as weapon technology, greater numbers, greater cooperation, specialised soldiers etc. Maybe there's evidence against it, but odd it's not addressed, with a puzzlingly high "selection differential". Another factor might have been sexual selection, if the new folk were healthier looking etc. Note they are talking specifically about the West - agriculture and civilization spread throughout the East without this gene.

zeteo 14y ago

I guess I must be missing something, because there's a rather obvious explanation of the article's central paradox: lactose has calories. To wit, it takes about 10kg of milk to make 1kg of hard cheese, i.e. 6000 vs 4000 calories. So if you have milk directly, instead of cheese, you get ~50% more calories. This would presumably make quite a difference for semi-starving pastoral populations in 10,000 BC.

malkia 14y ago
You can preserve cheese for much longer, and use it in much more foods.
- zeteo 14y ago
  Yes, but, when starvation looms, it seems you're better off having the milk directly (if you can).
  - etfb 14y ago
    That's for sure. By the time you have something halfway edible as cheese, a whole village could have died of starvation. Horrible finicky stuff to make, even with modern refrigeration.
    - 001sky 14y ago
      yhogurt is pretty easy and good for you, too =D
    - jpatokal 14y ago
      Not quite -- fresh cheeses can be made in a matter of hours, and quite dependably. Obviously they don't last as long as the harder kinds, but they're still more stable than milk. Here's one process: http://www.wikihow.com/Make-Paneer-(Indian-Cheese) http://www.wikihow.com/Make-Paneer-(Indian-Cheese)
      - etfb 14y ago

thalecress 14y ago

Calories. Cheese has only about 60% the calories of a starting volume of milk. [1] Plus, animals can graze on land you can't farm, and they're very portable. [1] http://westhunt.wordpress.com/2012/01/21/the-indo-european-advantage/ http://westhunt.wordpress.com/2012/01/21/the-indo-european-a...

ekm2 14y ago

Man was drinking milk long before there was a western civilization.

dave1619 14y ago

> Heart disease, diabetes, alcoholism, celiac disease, and perhaps even acne are direct results of the switch to agriculture. Really? A plant-based whole foods diet is probably the best cure out there for heart disease and type 2 diabetes. (google Dean Ornish, Neil Barnard, John McDougall) The author tells a good story but his bashing of agriculture is unsupported.

parasubvert 14y ago
There are big reasons to be skeptical about the claims of Ornish, McDougall, et al., especially given the evidence that low carbohydrate diets have in improving major heart disease and diabetes risk factors. I don't agree with the OP necessarily that agriculture led to the above diseases (agriculture is a very broad term), but it is true that these are "diseases of civilization" - such disease have conspicuously shown up under Western dietary influence. Cue Gary Taubes and his book, Good Calories / Bad Calories.
gnufied 14y ago
I am no expert but another linked story (http://discovermagazine.com/1987/may/02-the-worst-mistake-in-the-history-of-the-human-race/article_view?b_start:int=1&-C= http://discovermagazine.com/1987/may/02-the-worst-mistake-in...) explains it better why Agriculture had overall deteriorating effect on human health: 1. Early farmers had less access to variety of diet compared to hunter-gatherers. It is hard to disagree with this one. For a lot of Asia, Rice is still the main food and rice on its own contain little more than carbohydrates. 2. Risk of starvation if crops failed. 3. Encouraged crowded societies and deterioration in position of Women. Agriculture forced women to have children often and that in turn impacted their health. I don't know much about Europe but in India Govt. still runs advertisement encouraging Women to have kids at a gap of 3 years or more. I think it is widely held that healthier Mother in general means healthier baby.
- moheeb 14y ago
  There is no way 'Agriculture' has had an "overall deteriorating effect on human health". I believe the massive population explosion of humans can not be explained without agriculture.

bifrost 14y ago

I have an obvious bias here (I have a cow milk allergy) but I will be very happy when the use of cow milk becomes nonexistant!

bmelton 14y ago
Not trying to be obnoxious, but why? I'm allergic to cats, and while I might often joke that they're beasts from hell (seriously, have you ever paid attention to cats? They're preternaturally Satanic,) I don't actually wish them any harm. I know nothing of milk allergies or their severity -- is it so bad that just being near milk will cause you troubles, or is it only ingestion/contact. If the former, I suppose I get it. If the latter, why would it bother you that other people choose to consume it?
- wslh 14y ago
  Milk Allergy can be dangerous. It depends of the level of sensitiveness. For example a baby can be vaccinated by Glaxo's Infanrix that not say explicitly that contains milk protein and he/she will have rush in the skin, fever, cry all the day and make blood stools. And this is just a small symptom. In the worst case it can have an anaphylactic reaction. So... it can be really serious.
- Anechoic 14y ago
  As one of the 75% of blacks who is lactose intolerant, I can certainly sympathize with bifrost's post, although I don't want to deprive others of milk products if they enjoy it. As I was growing up, milk, being recognized as healthy part of a diet, was basically forced on me during school - okay, not literally, but the school lunches only provided milk or chocolate milk, the water fountains didn't work reliability, and the cafeteria staff would always look down on my if I brought my own juice. Sometimes it was easier to just gulp down the milk and then deal with stomach cramps/diarrhea during my afternoon classes followed by rushing home to use the bathroom before I exploded. One of the best parts about going away to college was being able to select my own beverages with my meal. If you want to have milk, that's fine with me, just don't force me to have to consume it.

Spooky23 14y ago

Access to milk is a great thing, because you get the calories and many nutrients needed to sustain life, and all you need is a cow, goat or sheep (which is mobile) and pasture. Compare that to cereal crops like wheat or maize or vegetable crops, which require long uninterrupted growing seasons and irrigation. Why is this important? When a troop of rampaging soldiers cuts through your village and pillages everything in sight, you grab your cows and family and boogey out of there. Essentially, you have a mobile food supply. In the event of a drought, you have options as well. With wheat or vegetables, no rain == no food. With a dairy animal, you go kill the guy who controls the next pasture and let Old Bessie the cow feast on the grass. (The other key development was the introduction of potatoes, which remain buried under the ground safe from the rampaging army above -- my Irish ancestors subsisted on potatoes hidden from the English taxman and a cow that lived in the house.) In Europe and the Near East, these things were really important, because there was always pillaging armies marching across the continent. Today, it's unlikely that some Mongol horde is going to loot my supermarket, so I drink milk and eat cheese because they are really tasty.

pm90 14y ago
The importance of Milk/Cows has been recognized in other cultures as well. My ancestors found cows to be so important that they deemed it sacred Today, India is the largest producer of Milk in the world, and that goes a long way in providing nutrition to its masses.
- yogrish 14y ago
  In India, Cow is more of divine than Bovine. As author rightly mentioned "Agriculture-plus-dairying became the backbone", in Indian civilization, it has been imbibed in culture that they both go hand in hand.Their interdependence is well known Cow eats Grass/waste crops, Cow dung/urine is used as manure for the crop and mosquito repellants etc. And outputs of both are enjoyed by the farmer - Crop and Milk products :)
  - mahmud 14y ago
    Why not eat the bulls for meat as well?

bane 14y ago

It's because it's delicious and goes really well in lots of foods. It moderates strong flavors, smooths out acidic drinks, fluffs up eggs among many other thousands of beneficial food uses. Other dairy products like butter and cheese are key to an immense palette of flavors and cooking techniques. Dairy is so delicious that I've even seen people with violent milk allergies put up with the consequences just to scarf down a few bites of custard or ice cream.

TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
They can get Lactase pills...

mitchi 14y ago

I hate the taste of milk. Pour yourself a glass of milk and drink some of it. Now go away and come back 5 minutes later. Drink again. It tastes bad now. I quickly changed to Soy Milk and I drank a lot of that instead. However, recently I have stopped all soy products because of the estrogen catalysers in them. I'm now on Almond Milk, I hope I'm good now.

lwat 14y ago
Why not just skip the milk?
joesb 14y ago
Then why not finish the whole glass?

teyc 14y ago

Perhaps people who tolerated milk reared cows. Given that those who were exposed to cowpox survive smallpox, the advantage conferred would have been huge.

edanm 14y ago

I'm slightly lactose intolerant. Here's a tip for others - you can buy Lactase pills at a pharmacy and take them just before you eat any meal that contains milk. This gives you the enzymes you need without your body producing in it. And it's really awesome. I only started doing this a year ago, but now I can eat many more cheeses, drink milkshakes, etc., without feeling bad. And it happens surprisingly often - every time you want to eat pizza, pastas, etc. Seriously, is you're lactose intolerant, give it a try - it improved my life considerably.

enraged_camel 14y ago
There are also brands of milk that include the enzyme. Even easier.

thomasfl 14y ago

It really sucks living in norway with lactose intolerance. Just about every kind of processed food got milk in some form or another in it. Bread, hot dogs, caviar, potati chips. It's mad cow milk disease!

zaroth 14y ago

Wow, mampires... "We became, in the coinage of one paleoanthropologist, “mampires” who feed on the fluids of other animals."

feintruled 14y ago
The real irony for me is the instinctual revulsion that many feel about drinking human milk! (As adults, of course, babies sure seem to love it)

WA 14y ago

I read once a theory that the enzyme that splits lactose in the body is destroyed by sunlight. People living near the equator have a much higher lactose intolerance because the constant sunshine destroys the enzyme. Likewise, people in Sweden for example have a 100x higher lactose tolerance, because there's less sunlight throughout the year.

finnw 14y ago

The title sounds like the name of a Big Bang Theory episode

krob 14y ago

I'm lactose intolerant. I guess I'm a caveman :(

Shenglong 14y ago

though not in the Americas, Australia, or the Far East. Does anyone know why some East Asians (such as myself) are lactose tolerant? Is that evidence of interbreeding in the past?

robmcm 14y ago
Could be the same mutation, or lack of mutation (depending on the original state of tolerance). However if there is no advantage/disadvantage at a certain point (such as our brains taking over to stop young suckling too long, or ample supply of other foods) then it would remain relatively rare in the gene pool. Perhaps the opposite was true in Asia and your genes managed to survive where the tolerance was an disadvantage?

hcarvalhoalves 14y ago

The ties between agriculture and herding are not clear. Mongols are nomads and have a diet that is basically just milk. I believe the benefit of drinking milk is obvious. A herd can take calories from grass and drink mud, while the human enjoys a source of clean, caloric, nutrient rich drink that can go anywhere. Farmers, on the other hand, can just be ran over, pilled or sieged by enemies.

zacharyvoase 14y ago

Would pasteurization (or lack thereof pre-1862) have any effect on the research?

robmcm 14y ago

It could be a lot more simple, such as a bacteria that grew on cheese, or a virus that milk protected you from. This would support massive switch to tolerance (simple survival of the fittest). It also supports the spread, as a bacteria or virus would not have made it out of the "islands" (himalayas, oceans) and so tolerance wouldn't have been an advantage.

josephjrobison 14y ago

I do value the importance of milk from a survival standpoint, but I think today's milk is a bastardized version of milk our ancestors survived on that they drank directly from the cow. With the whole factory farm system and terrible diets most (American) cows eat, not to mention the steroids and antibiotics that a lot of cows are given, I don't believe the idea that milk is a nutrient packed elixir. Not hating for those who want to feel good about their love for milk, but I don't think today's milk is much more than a treat and baking ingredient.

josephjrobison 14y ago

ckdarby 14y ago

I feel a little odd drinking this while I drink a glass of milk >_>

goggles99 14y ago

WOW - I cannot believe the false premise this entire article is based on. This is Epigenetics, not mutation or evolution!!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/epigenetics.html http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/epigenetics.html The article itself says >Two hundred thousand years later, around 10,000 B.C., this began to change. A genetic mutation appeared, somewhere near modern-day Turkey, that jammed the lactase-production gene permanently in the “on” position. This is NOT a genetic mutation. The gene was already there but not turned on past the toddler years. I searched this entire page of comments and no one knows or points this out?