Milk

[irongymnast]

Should I drink full fat or low fat milk?

What are the pros/cons of each?

[Guest Ido Portal]

Most people are highly allergic to dairy (protein allergies, lactose intolerence and other incompatibility issues) and should probobly stay away.

If you choose to drink it, you should understand that dairy have a very high insulin response to it, even when it is low in lactose. I would suggest to drink the higher fat version to help with the insulin management problem and get a more complete version of the original product. Even better would be a non homogenized, non-pasteurized, hormone free, grass fad cow milk. If you are going to drink this stuff, at least get the real deal, and not the highly processed product people in the west refer to as 'milk'. (White water with a mostly negative effect on the human organism)

The low fat product is always processed as hell, I suggest you stay away from that.

Ido.

[Ryan Libke]

I agree mostly with what Ido stated above. People have vary idiosyncratic reactions to milk. Some populations, especially northern Europeans, can digest it better, as they produce more lactase enzyme than other populations. But even then, there is considerable individual variation. Even though I am entirely of northern European descent, I am lactose intolerant. My son is not. My daughter is. I seem to do o.k. with milk that has been treated with lactase, and I now prefer the full fat version. A little of that can go a long way. One just has to remember that the purpose of milk is to help a calf grow into a cow.

[dlsso]

Things can be processed without adding bad stuff to them. Also, whole milk has lots of saturated fat. I vote skim.

[Joshua Naterman]

Are you aware that there are quite a few GOOD saturated fats? Saturated doesn't mean bad, it means that it stays solid at room temperature.

Stearic acid is a saturated fat, and it is one of the most important components in cell membranes.

As far as milk goes, it's true that over half of the saturated fats are possibly detrimental to ideal blood cholesterol, but if you're taking milk after each workout and that's it, your cholesterol levels aren't going to be affected. Nothing wrong with going skim, but whole milk tastes so... tasty!

[Brendan Coad]

Are you aware that there are quite a few GOOD saturated fats? Saturated doesn't mean bad, it means that it stays solid at room temperature.

Stearic acid is a saturated fat, and it is one of the most important components in cell membranes.

As far as milk goes, it's true that over half of the saturated fats are possibly detrimental to ideal blood cholesterol, but if you're taking milk after each workout and that's it, your cholesterol levels aren't going to be affected. Nothing wrong with going skim, but whole milk tastes so... tasty!

makes dem dere cheerios taste good =)

[dlsso]

Are you aware that there are quite a few GOOD saturated fats? Saturated doesn't mean bad, it means that it stays solid at room temperature.

Stearic acid is a saturated fat, and it is one of the most important components in cell membranes.

As far as milk goes, it's true that over half of the saturated fats are possibly detrimental to ideal blood cholesterol, but if you're taking milk after each workout and that's it, your cholesterol levels aren't going to be affected. Nothing wrong with going skim, but whole milk tastes so... tasty!

All fats are good in small amounts, and many perform vital functions in the body. When people say "good" fats they generally mean ones that can be consumed in larger amounts and improve the blood lipid ratio. As I recall stearic acid is the only one of the three main saturated fats that does not have an overtly negative effect on blood lipid ratios, and is in fact thought to be more "neutral" than "good." (And that only due to the fact that much of it is converted to a monounsaturated fat) Furthermore, only ~10% of the saturated fat in milk is from stearic acid.

Long story short:

Avoid large amounts of milk fat.

[Neal Winkler]

The latest study revealing the myth of saturated fat:

Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease1,2,3,4,5

Patty W Siri-Tarino, Qi Sun, Frank B Hu and Ronald M Krauss

ABSTRACT

Background: A reduction in dietary saturated fat has generally been thought to improve cardiovascular health.

Objective: The objective of this meta-analysis was to summarize the evidence related to the association of dietary saturated fat with risk of coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, and cardiovascular disease (CVD; CHD inclusive of stroke) in prospective epidemiologic studies.

Design: Twenty-one studies identified by searching MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and secondary referencing qualified for inclusion in this study. A random-effects model was used to derive composite relative risk estimates for CHD, stroke, and CVD.

Results: During 5–23 y of follow-up of 347,747 subjects, 11,006 developed CHD or stroke. Intake of saturated fat was not associated with an increased risk of CHD, stroke, or CVD. The pooled relative risk estimates that compared extreme quantiles of saturated fat intake were 1.07 (95% CI: 0.96, 1.19; P = 0.22) for CHD, 0.81 (95% CI: 0.62, 1.05; P = 0.11) for stroke, and 1.00 (95% CI: 0.89, 1.11; P = 0.95) for CVD. Consideration of age, ***, and study quality did not change the results.

Conclusions: A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD. More data are needed to elucidate whether CVD risks are likely to be influenced by the specific nutrients used to replace saturated fat.

Source: http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstrac ... 09.27725v1

[Charles]

Disso, there is nothing wrong with natural, untampered with fat. My own diet currently consists of <60% of it which comes in the form of wild game meat and raw milk from cows who do what cows are supposed to do.

[dlsso]

Ok, I suppose I should have put a disclaimer: "provided you believe the American Heart Association... etc. etc."

Whether or not you think saturated fats are "bad" (again, I use the word loosely) is another huge issue and best suited to its own thread. For the record I currently recommend avoiding them though I'm aware that recent research has suggested that they may have been given a worse reputation than they deserve.

Thanks for the study, I haven't read that one yet and it looks interesting.

[Neal Winkler]

It is not only recent research that exonerates saturated fat as the evidence was never good from the very beginning.

[Joshua Naterman]

That's so true. If you look into it, the whole idea about saturated fats came from ONE SINGULAR STUDY in the 1950's, and that's what sparked the use of margarine and other fat replacements. There were several other studies during the same time period that had completely different results, and nearly all of the research from then until now has leaned heavily towards saturated fat not being a problem.

On the other side of the fence, there are not high incidences of heart problems or strokes among native populations that have higher saturated fat intakes. This has been pretty well documented, and adds weight to the suggestion that artificially modified fats along with high levels of processed high glycemic carbohydrates are in fact the culprits behind most of the damage done by modern diets.

[dlsso]

That's so true. If you look into it, the whole idea about saturated fats came from ONE SINGULAR STUDY

As I said before, if you want to discuss this more in depth it should be in a different thread. I'm not going to get into it any further in this thread, but here are just a handful of guys who might beg to differ with the "one singular study" claim:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12618280

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7644455

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9366580

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10584044

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9021429

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7861873

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11348573

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8172107

[Neal Winkler]

I looked at your first two references and I noticed a pattern emerging. You pick illegitimate studies.

The first study only looked at the effect of different fats on cholesterol. However, this does not prove that saturated fats actually have an effect on mortality or instances of heart disease. You are merely ASSUMING that it does by the effect on blood lipids. Real proof will show a DIRECT link between mortality/heart disease and saturated fat intake.

The second study was on the seven countries study. The 7CS is pure baloney as the 7 countries were purposely picked to show a bad affect for saturated fats. Given the data that was available at the time, you could of picked 7 different studies and got the exact opposite result.

[dlsso]

See other thread.

[Jay Guindon]

Another Reason Not To Drink Your Milk: Betacellulin

Although dairy foods comprise nearly 11% of the energy in the typical U.S. diet1, these foods were never consumed by every human on the planet as recently as 500 human generations (10,000 years) ago. Increasingly, data from tissue, human, animal and epidemiological studies demonstrate that this staple food has the potential to adversely influence health as would be predicted by the evolutionary template.

The Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor

Only 12 short years have elapsed since the discovery that humans bear a hormonal receptor in their gastrointestinal tract called the epidermal growth factor receptor. This trans-membrane, hormonal receptor is very unusual in that it is expressed luminally – meaning that it faces the gut contents rather than the bloodstream2, 3. The location of the EGF receptor puzzled scientists for years – why was it expressed luminally and what was its function4? Since, hormones always arrive at tissues from the circulation, why should the EGF receptor face the gut contents, which in effect are outside the body?

Function of the Gut Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor

It turns out that the primary function of the luminally facing EGF receptor is to stimulate healing and maintain the integrity of the cells lining the gastrointestinal tract3, 4. In humans, the primary source of the hormone (EGF) which binds to the EGF receptor in the gut comes from saliva5. So when you swallow your own saliva, it contains a hormone (EGF), which binds to the EGF receptor located in the gut to maintain the integrity and promote healing of the cells (epithelial cells) lining the gut (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Synthesis of EGF from the salivary glands and absorption in the gut via the EGF receptor (EGF-R).

After the salivary EGF binds the EGF receptor, both the receptor and EGF may cross into the interior of gut cells. The EGF receptor is then recycled back into the cell membrane (Figure 1). Most of the EGF is degraded by organelles within the cell called lysosomes. However, some EGF escapes destruction by the lysosomes and then enters circulation. We know that salivary EGF enters circulation, because when the salivary and submandibular glands of laboratory animals are destroyed, blood concentrations of EGF are greatly reduced6.

Besides being expressed luminally in the gut, the EGF receptor is expressed in the usual manner (facing the bloodstream) in all epithelial cells and organs undergoing branching morphogenesis during embryonic development. Consequently salivary EGF that enters the circulation can bind EGF receptors located in the skin, gastrointestinal tract, lung, kidney, mammary gland, pancreas, prostate gland, ovary and other tissues. At this point, it should be noted that there are actually four different forms of the EGF receptor (ErbB-1, ErbB-2, ErbB-3 and ErbB-4) found throughout the body. Each of these four receptors combine with one another to form pairs called homodimers or heterodimers that can bind EGF or EGF like hormones (Figure 2). Keep this information in mind when the discussion moves to cancer.

Figure 2. The four families of the epidermal growth factor receptor (ErbB1, ErbB2, ErbB3 and ErbB4).

Each of the four receptors combines to form a pair with a different receptor (a heterodimer) or itself (a homodimer). The 10 hormones which can bind the various receptors are depicted in boxes above the receptors. Their binding specificities are indicated by the arrows.

Healthy normal adults secrete on average 0.48 ml of saliva per minute7 which translates to 28.8 ml per hour or 691 ml per 24 hours. The average concentration of EGF in whole saliva (not just the protein fraction) is 0.0512 nanograms per ml8; so the total salivary EGF produced in a 24 hour period would equal on average 35.3 nanograms.

Betacellulin: A Hormone that Binds the Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor

The EGF receptor is a promiscuous receptor in that it doesn’t just bind a single hormone (EGF), but rather binds a large family of hormones including transforming growth factor alpha (TGF-α), heparin binding EGF(HB-EGF), epiregulin (EPR), amphiregulin (AR), neuregulins 1, 2, 3 and 4 (NRG1, NRG2, NRG3, NRG4) and betacellulin (BTC)9. The key hormone to remember here is betacellulin because it is found in cow’s milk in high concentrations. Betacellulin is a very stable hormone in that it is not degraded by the heat of pasteurization and is even found in high concentrations in cheese10.

When you drink cow’s milk or eat cheese, you are, in effect, dosing yourself with betacellulin. You might think that protein shearing enzymes in your gut would breakdown betacellulin and other hormones belonging to the EGF hormonal family before they can get to the gut EGF receptor. However, this is not the case, as cow’s milk contains peptidase inhibitors which allow EGF to remain intact even in human digestive juices of the stomach and small intestine11. Remember that betacellulin can bind the luminally expressed EGF receptor in the gut, and can thereby enter circulation via the same mechanism that the salivary hormone, EGF, does.

So what – what if a little betacellulin from cow’s milk gets into your bloodstream – does it matter? You bet it matters. A liter of whole milk (633 kcal) contains 1,930 nano-grams of betacellulin10 whereas the amount of EGF that your salivary glands secrete is only 35.3 ng per day. The binding affinity of betacellulin to the EGF receptor is greater than that for EGF; consequently betacellulin can displace EGF from the EGF receptor9. The amount of betacellulin that you get from drinking even a single cup of milk (457 nanograms) has the capacity to stimulate the EGF receptor 10 times more than what normally would occur during a 24 hour period from EGF in saliva.

The Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor and Cancer

So, what’s wrong with increased stimulation of the EGF receptor? First off, when a member of the EGF hormonal family binds the EGF receptor it sets off a chemical cascade that ultimately causes more EGF receptors to be synthesized. This process is known as up-regulation. Higher concentrations of EGF up-regulate the EGF-R12, 13. So, by ingesting supplemental betacellulin from cow’s milk, the number of EGF receptors may increase in the gut and in peripheral tissues bearing the EGF receptor. A higher betacellulin concentration in the bloodstream along with increased numbers of EGF receptors causes an increase in signaling (flux) through the EGF receptor pathway.

Overexpression of the EGF receptor and hence increased flux through this pathway occurs in a wide variety of cancers including: breast, colon, prostate, ovarian, lung, pancreatic, bladder, stomach, and head and neck cancers13, 14, 15. Higher concentrations of the EGF receptor increases cancer recurrence, reduces survival and increases tumor progression and development 13. Activation of the EGF receptor by the EGF family of hormones, including betacellulin, promotes cancer by 1) increasing cell proliferation, 2) decreasing programmed cell death (apoptosis), 3) increasing tumor formation and progression and, 4) increasing growth of blood vessels (angiogenesis) within tumors14.

The U.S. Food and Drug administration has recently approved experimental trials of pharmaceuticals (gefitinib, erlotinib, cetuximab) which can halt or slow various cancers by blocking the EGF receptor signaling14, 15. Perhaps a better strategy would be to stop drinking betacellulin containing cow’s milk which may over stimulate EGF receptor signaling in the first place. Although observational epidemiological studies cannot show cause and effect between diet and disease, they suggest that milk drinking and dairy consumption is linked to a variety of cancers including: ovarian16-19, breast20-26, colon20, 27-29, lung20, 30-32, stomach20, 33, pancreatic34-36, and prostate37-40.

Milk, indeed, may not be good for everybody, particularly cancer patients or those with a family history of cancer

References

1. Cordain L, Eaton SB, Sebastian A, Mann N, Lindeberg S, Watkins BA, O'Keefe JH, Brand-Miller J. Origins and evolution of the Western diet: health implications for the 21st century.Am J Clin Nutr. 2005 Feb;81(2):341-54.

2. Hormi K, Lehy T. Developmental expression of transforming growth factor-alpha and epidermal growth factor receptor proteins in the human pancreas and digestive tract. Cell Tissue Res. 1994 Dec;278(3):439-50.

3. Montaner B, Perez-Tomas R. Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGF-R) localization in the apical membrane of the enterocytes of rat duodenum. Cell Biol Int. 1999;23(7):475-9.

4. Playford RJ, Wright NA. Why is epidermal growth factor present in the gut lumen? Gut 1996;38: 303-5.

5. Konturek JW, Bielanski W, Konturek SJ, Bogdal J, Oleksy J. Distribution and release of epidermal growth factor in man. Gut. 1989 Sep;30(9):1194-200.

6. Rao RK, Thomas DW, Pepperl S, Porreca F. Salivary epidermal growth factor plays a role in protection of ileal mucosal integrity. Dig Dis Sci. 1997 Oct; 42(10):2175-81.

7. Ono K, Morimoto Y, Inoue H, Masuda W, Tanaka T, Inenaga K. Relationship of the unstimulated whole saliva flow rate and salivary gland size estimated by magnetic resonance image in healthy young humans. Arch Oral Biol. 2006 Apr;51(4):345-9.

8. Dagogo-Jack S, Atkinson S, Kendall-Taylor P. Homologous radioimmunoassay for epidermal growth factor in human saliva. J Immunoassay. 1985;6(1-2):125-36.

9. Dunbar AJ, Priebe IK, Belford DA, Goddard C. Identification of betacellulin as a major peptide growth factor in milk: purification, characterization and molecular cloning of bovine betacellulin. Biochem J. 1999 Dec 15;344 Pt 3:713-21.

10. Bastian SE, Dunbar AJ, Priebe IK, Owens PC, Goddard C. Measurement of betacellulin levels in bovine serum, colostrum and milk. J Endocrinol. 2001 Jan;168(1):203-12.

11. Rao RK, Baker RD, Baker SS. Bovine milk inhibits proteolytic degradation of epidermal growth factor in human gastric and duodenal lumen. Peptides. 1998; 19(3):495-504.

12. Lamb DJ, Modjtahedi H, Plant NJ, Ferns GA. EGF mediates monocyte chemotaxis and macrophage proliferation and EGF receptor is expressed in atherosclerotic plaques. Atherosclerosis. 2004 Sep;176(1):21-6.

13. Davies DE, Chamberlin SG. Targeting the epidermal growth factor receptor for therapy of carcinomas.Biochem Pharmacol. 1996 May 3;51(9):1101-10.

14. Seiwert TY, Cohen E. The emerging role of EGFR and VEGF inhibition in the treatment of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Angiogenesis Oncol 2005;1:7-10.

15. Henson ES, Gibson SB. Surviving cell death through epidermal growth factor (EGF) signal transduction pathways: Implications for cancer therapy. Cell Signal. 2006 Dec;18(12):2089-97.

16. Mettlin CJ, Piver MS. A case-control study of milk-drinking and ovarian cancer risk. Am J Epidemiol. 1990 Nov;132(5):871-6.

17. Fairfield KM, Hunter DJ, Colditz GA, Fuchs CS, Cramer DW, Speizer FE, Willett WC, Hankinson SE. A prospective study of dietary lactose and ovarian cancer. Int J Cancer. 2004 Jun 10;110(2):271-7.

18. Larsson SC, Orsini N, Wolk A. Milk, milk products and lactose intake and ovarian cancer risk: a meta-analysis of epidemiological studies. Int J Cancer. 2006 Jan 15;118(2):431-41.

19. Larsson SC, Bergkvist L, Wolk A. Milk and lactose intakes and ovarian cancer risk in the Swedish Mammography Cohort. Am J Clin Nutr. 2004 Nov;80(5):1353-7.

20. Mettlin CJ, Schoenfeld ER, Natarajan N. Patterns of milk consumption and risk of cancer.Nutr Cancer. 1990;13(1-2):89-99.

21. Le MG, Moulton LH, Hill C, Kramar A. Consumption of dairy produce and alcohol in a case-control study of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1986 Sep;77(3):633-6.

22. Li XM, Ganmaa D, Sato A. The experience of Japan as a clue to the etiology of breast and ovarian cancers: relationship between death from both malignancies and dietary practices. Med Hypotheses. 2003 Feb;60(2):268-75.

23. Hislop TG, Coldman AJ, Elwood JM, Brauer G, Kan L. Childhood and recent eating patterns and risk of breast cancer. Cancer Detect Prev. 1986;9(1-2):47-58.

24. Talamini R, La Vecchia C, Decarli A, Franceschi S, Grattoni E, Grigoletto E, Liberati A, Tognoni G. Social factors, diet and breast cancer in a northern Italian population. Br J Cancer. 1984 Jun;49(6):723-9.

25. Ursin G, Bjelke E, Heuch I, Vollset SE. Milk consumption and cancer incidence: a Norwegian prospective study.Br J Cancer. 1990 Mar;61(3):456-9.

26. Zhang J, Kesteloot H. Milk consumption in relation to incidence of prostate, breast, colon, and rectal cancers: is there an independent effect? Nutr Cancer. 2005;53(1):65-72.

27. Kuriki K, Tajima K. The increasing incidence of colorectal cancer and the preventive strategy in Japan. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2006 Jul-Sep;7(3):495-501.

28. Decarli A, La Vecchia C. Environmental factors and cancer mortality in Italy: correlational exercise.Oncology. 1986;43(2):116-26.

29. Hara N, Sakata K, Nagai M, Fujita Y, Hashimoto T, Yanagawa H. Statistical analyses on the pattern of food consumption and digestive-tract cancers in Japan. Nutr Cancer. 1984;6(4):220-8.

30. Mettlin C. Milk drinking, other beverage habits, and lung cancer risk. Int J Cancer. 1989 Apr 15;43(4):608-12.

31. Axelsson G, Rylander R. Diet as risk for lung cancer: a Swedish case-control study. Nutr Cancer. 2002;44(2):145-51.

32. Axelsson G, Liljeqvist T, Andersson L, Bergman B, Rylander R. Dietary factors and lung cancer among men in west Sweden. Int J Epidemiol. 1996 Feb;25(1):32-9.

33. Kneller RW, McLaughlin JK, Bjelke E, Schuman LM, Blot WJ, Wacholder S, Gridley G, CoChien HT, Fraumeni JF Jr. A cohort study of stomach cancer in a high-risk American population. Cancer. 1991 Aug 1;68(3):672-8.

34. Corella Piquer D, Cortina Greus P, Coltell Simon O. [Nutritional factors and geographic differences in pancreatic cancer mortality in Spain]Rev Sanid Hig Publica (Madr). 1994 May-Jun;68(3):361-76.

35. Ghadirian P, Thouez JP, PetitClerc C. International comparisons of nutrition and mortality from pancreatic cancer. Cancer Detect Prev. 1991; 15(5):357-62.

36. Thouez JP, Ghadirian P, Petitclerc C, Hamelin P. International comparisons of nutrition and mortality from cancers of the oesophagus, stomach and pancreas. Geogr Med. 1990;20:39-50.

37. Tseng M, Breslow RA, Graubard BI, Ziegler RG. Dairy, calcium, and vitamin D intakes and prostate cancer risk in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Epidemiologic Follow-up Study cohort. Am J Clin Nutr. 2005 May;81(5):1147-54.

38. Giovannucci E, Liu Y, Stampfer MJ, Willett WC. A prospective study of calcium intake and incident and fatal prostate cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006 Feb;15(2):203-10.

39. Chan JM, Stampfer MJ, Ma J, Gann PH, Gaziano JM, Giovannucci EL. Dairy products, calcium, and prostate cancer risk in the Physicians' Health Study. Am J Clin Nutr. 2001 Oct;74(4):549-54.

40. Gao X, LaValley MP, Tucker KL. Prospective studies of dairy product and calcium intakes and prostate cancer risk: a meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005 Dec 7;97(23):1768-77.

[Joshua Naterman]

Nice! No milk for cancer patients lol!

It's nice to know how much more cell growth and healing milk causes! No wonder milk helps people get stronger! This study offers a neat bit of trivia on how powerful milk is! That's really good to know, both the cancer concerns AND the actual effects of milk!

It's probably important to remember that even though milk may be bad for people at a high risk for cancer or who actually have or have had cancer, that there has not been a widespread pandemic of cancer despite the widespread use of dairy products all over the world.

L-glutamine helps increase growth hormone levels, and while that may in fact be terrible for a cancer patient it's good for most of us, and there are not a bunch of athletes dropping dead from cancer!

The fact remains that cancer is a disease that is so multifactorial that we haven't got much of a clue as to why people actually end up with it. I have a friend doing cancer research at John Hopkins, and even at that level cancer is pretty much a mystery. He thinks he's onto something with the genetics, but I don't know anything about that field.

I think that this last post was a fantastic article to bring to everyone's attention, so thank you! Just make sure you guys don't flip out and think that milk's going to give you cancer. If you do end up with cancer in the future, this article provides some fairly strong reasons why you should probably cut dairy out. Perhaps this can be passed on to friends who have cancer and some lives can be saved.

[Jay Guindon]

Just information so you can make your own choices. Milk is one of the most potent ways to put on mass, ie 70s Big, GOMAD, etc. but what is great for that can also be problematic for some people, ie people who already have problems with excess growth, in this case tumours. I would have to disagree with your assertation that cancer hasn't risen though. I'm not saying it's due to the milk, but cancer rates keep increasing.

Anyways, I enjoy sharing information but ultimately it's up to every person to make up their mind as to what positions have the most evidence and the most logical arguments in their favour. I believe it is paleo but I could also be full of it, maybe I haven't read enough, maybe I missed a key study, etc. so all I offer is information.

[Joshua Naterman]

I didn't say cancer rates aren't rising, I said there is not a global pandemic. Cancer is still fairly rare and is increasing fairly slowly. In fact, as a percentile ranking I don't know whether it is increasing or not, because recorded incident rates don't even come close to telling the whole story until they are cross-referenced with population growth and other factors that may give a different picture to the story. There are so many possible contributing factors that it's literally not possible right now to know why the rates are increasing.

The basics of paleo are solid. Just don't get caught up in dogmatic devotion to one way. Olive oil doesn't fit in with strict paleo guidelines according to many authors, but the health benefits of olive oil consumption are immense. You'd essentially have to be a zealot to not include olive oil in your diet just because Paleo says ancient man didn't consume olive oil. An intelligent athlete will include what is good for him or her, not just what is outlined by a particular viewpoint on nutrition no matter what its merits are. Just an example.

[Jason Stein]

Slizzard,

Many Paleo eaters avoid olive oil not because cavemen did not eat it, but because olive oil, and sources of plant fat in general (with the exception of coconut oil), contain linoleic acid, which is pro-inflammatory and atherogenic, and possibly leads to a host of other issues like hyperinsulimia, leaky gut, etc, etc.

Basically, if you reduce your carb intake and therefore bump up your fat intake, and then go to town with olive oil, you're taking in a grip of polyunsaturated fat, which in excess amounts is a 'neolithic' agent.

The takeaway: if you're going 'low carb' and Paleo (i.e. eliminating grains/legumes/dairy), and by extension high-fat, try to stick with saturated fat over polyunsaturated fat, and eat as much of it as you can from animal sources or coconuts --- lard, tallow, ghee, grass-fed butter (Kerrygold!), coconut, etc.

Olive oil is also a fairly recent dietary fad. Always watch out for "magic plant" dogma.

best,

jason

[Joshua Naterman]

It is fairly common knowledge that olive oil has moderately high anti-inflammatory properties in the body.

There's no such thing as a natural oil that is purely mono-unsaturated, nuts actually have a much higher ratio of poly to mono than extra virgin(EV) or "pure"(a blend of EV and refined that is nearly the same as EV) olive oil. So in that sense I think the prospective dangers of EV and "pure" olive oil are almost nonexistent, since you need a certain amount of linoleic acid to be healthy, and linoleic acid is almost nonexistent in meat. 3% by weight in beef.

But you're right about the vegetable oils in general, they have rather a lot of LA, where as olive oil has an average of 10% by weight.

Because EVOO and Pure olive oil are held to much stricter standards than any olive oil not branded as one of those two, they actually have less than that, while the "lite" olive oils have 20% or more. With high quality olive oil, the amount of linoleic acid by weight is not much higher than beef.

The breakdown for olive oil in general is as follows:

* Oleic Acid (C18:1), a monounsaturated omega-9 fatty acid. It makes up 55 to 83% of olive oil.

* Linoleic Acid (C18:2), a polyunsaturated omega-6 fatty acid that makes up about 3.5 to 21% of olive oil.

* Palmitic Acid (C16:0), a saturated fatty acid that makes up 7.5 to 20% of olive oil.

* Stearic Acid (C18:0), a saturated fatty acid that makes up 0.5 to 5% of olive oil.

* Linolenic Acid (C18:3)(specifically alpha-Linolenic Acid), a polyunsaturated omega-3 fatty acid that makes up 0 to 1.5% of olive oil.

However, for EVOO there must be 3.5% or less linoleic and 1.5% or less of Linolenic Acid. Pure is not far behind, I believe it's allowed up to 5% Linoleic acid. The rest is mostly oleic acid, with some palmitic and stearic acids filling in the gaps.

That may be nit-picky, but knowing the numbers is pretty important when talking about this stuff and when making olive oil recommendations. EVOO has a better fatty acid profile than just about everything except grass-fed beef. Even then, it's damn close. I just checked the Nebraska Beef Report from 2009 and apparently a diet of only 33% grain results in a jump from 3%(no grain) to 4.78% after 133 days.

Macadamia oil is three or more times the price and has virtually the same profile as EVOO. I know, it is better, but for three times the price it's not worth going from 3.5% or less down to 2%. At 3.5% you're already WAY under any danger zone, even if you have 100g a day of olive oil.

[shinobi1]

This is a great thread, I asked about milk on another forum. Thank you Ido and Jay, both of you gave great info. From what I gather milk is great for gaining mass for several reason already mentioned. One that was not mention was that milk contains one of the best mixtures of protien (casin and whey) and milk is a whole food, therefore milk is way better than any protien suppliment you could ever buy and its probably cheaper too. I would drink raw milk but its not avaible in supermarkets or any health food stor that I know of (however I do see raw cheese). I drink milk mostly for the calcium. I know I could replace it with some more healthier foods but right now I find milk is the easiest way to get calcium into my diet, from whole food. I may swap it out later but for now it stays. If anyone know where to get raw milk let me know... I dont have enough money to buy a cow.

Here is a link on other sources of calcium and vitamin D, if your like me you might find it useful for replacing milk with other foods if you were drinking it for the calcium or vitamin D content. You should note that you should be getting more like 1000IU of vitamin D not what it says in the link. http://www.healthlinkbc.ca/healthfiles/ ... .stm#hf004

Also slizardma and someone else was talking about EVOO, any oil not a whole food and therefore you should not be eating much of it. Its fine to dress your salad or something but it shouldnt be your main source of fat. you are better of getting it from whole olives or other more nutrient dense foods.

[Joshua Naterman]

Are you aware that olive oil comes from essentially a mechanical chewing process? Saying it's not a "whole food" is almost like saying anything you chew in your mouth isn't whole. Unless you mean that it's not a significant source of all three macronutrients, in which case you are right, and beef would also not be a whole food due to low carbohydrate content. I'm not suggesting that you try to live off of the stuff, but having a table spoon or two with a few meals a day will do wonders for you if it's high quality oil(EVOO or "pure").

Secondly, milk works out to be about half the price of protein supplements per gram, at 2 bucks a gallon in my area. There was a point at which I was drinking a gallon a day just to save money on protein lol! It works, I'll say that. Not the best thing for staying super ripped, but strength and recovery was great. Having said that, there are a lot of good reasons that have been pointed out here as to why drinking that much milk could be a terrible idea and I won't say I recommend it!

[Jason Stein]

It is fairly common knowledge that olive oil has moderately high anti-inflammatory properties in the body ... So in that sense I think the prospective dangers of EV and "pure" olive oil are almost nonexistent, since you need a certain amount of linoleic acid to be healthy, and linoleic acid is almost nonexistent in meat. 3% by weight in beef.

Slizzard,

Context is important here.

If 60% of your calories are coming from olive oil as a source of fat, you are consuming about 6% polyunsaturated fat, a pro-inflammatory amount. If your goal is to reduce inflammation, this is not desirable.

With regards to other acids, I suggest you investigate grain-fed versus grass-fed meat. Meat and dairy from grass-fed grass-eaters are the richest known source of conjugated linoleic acid.

I understand you have an affinity for olive oil; however, as I mentioned before, the concept of olive oil as "magic plant" is a recent phenomenon (some track back to the Mediterranean Diet), and it, like many other "super plants," does not pass general paleo principles: Was it available to most humans throughout most of our evolutionary history?

This doesn't mean it's time to ban olive oil. I would just be careful not to over-ascribe miraculous properties to a substance that is essentially unnecessary for health, wellness and fitness.

There are a few interesting paleo thinkers who suggest that plants as a whole are unnecessary for health, wellness and fitness, but that's another topic.

best,

jason

[Guest Ido Portal]

Well said, Jason.