Milk

[Alvaro Antolinez]

Any study or thought on goat milk? Is it much diferent from cow milk? Less hormones maybe?( after all goats are not weighted in thousands of pounds )

[Alvaro Antolinez]

About the grades of olive oil. The purest kind is cold presSed, it is almost green. As they want to obtain more oil of the same olives they just heat the pressing, the more they heat it the cheaper and less quality it is. That beautiful gold olive oil usually is the refined one or a blend, more used for cooking as it is cheaper. That must be the reason it has more omega 6 fat than the pure one. For salads and flavour you should use the virgin olive oil ( as we call it in spain).

As for the carnivore paleo style (it is just an opinion I dont have your vast knowledge!), I "think" as hominids we are more omnivors than pure carnivors, and obviously we are not pure vegetarians as we lack some stomachs and a bigger belly to digest all that celulose. Maybe frutivors and insectivors? Hell no! 8)

But dont kick me for this opinion!

edit: the omega 6 coment.

[Joshua Naterman]

Goat milk is structurally more similar to human milk than any other animal that I'm aware of. That's why there's practically no one who is allergic to goat milk, and why you can(and many people have) suckle a baby on a goat teat if the mother dies and there is no available wet nurse.

I totally agree that taking 60% of your calories from any one source would probably be a bad idea I'm definitely not saying that anyone should be doing that. However, I do think it is interesting and important to note that not all polyunsaturated fats are pro-inflammatory, and that gross levels are not as important as ratios. I want to be clear that I am not trying to say that you are wrong, but rather that there are facts being glossed over. I have never liked warnings that do not include full context. They are biased and essentially politically motivated, in the sense that politics is the science of influencing people. I'm not referring to political parties. I don't have a problem with that as long as there is full disclosure, which is what this forum is so great for!

Anyhow, my point about your warning concerning polyunsaturated fats is this: Omega 3 fatty acids are polyunsaturated. They are also, as we know, mostly fairly powerful anti-inflammatory agents when ingested.

I also think you may have missed the qualifier I put in my earlier post, which referenced the grass fed beef. I didn't mention milk, but that's a good point also. The purely grass-fed beefs and milks are very, very healthy and I am not (nor have I ever) suggested otherwise. The meat does have a more ideal fatty acid profile than olive oil. I do not know about the milk, though nothing will change the growth properties of milk (until someone comes up with a suicide inhibitor for that hormone that was mentioned earlier). Unfortunately they are fairly lean pieces of meat, and the amount you'd have to eat to get more fat in your diet is both beyond the financial capabilities of most people and in some cases beyond their stomach capacity, though I'd imagine that last part could change fairly quickly to some degree.

I appreciate the mention of the grass-fed meat/milk products, because I certainly don't want that to get lost in my desire to paint a complete picture regarding olive oil. I don't want anyone to take what I have said out of context and suggest that anyone try to get the majority of their calories from EVOO or any other one source. What I do want is for people to have a clear understanding of olive oil's nutritional qualities, as well as insight into why no single philosophy will ever have all the answers until there is "one single philosophy" that is really just a conglomeration of all the most healthy aspects of each dietary school of thought. Just as there is no one "pure" answer in anything, be it psychology, exercise science, even marketing, there will never be one "pure" answer to nutrition. It will always be a blend of the best information available, and in my opinion it should be the goal of us all to strive for this. That's why I read up on everything that gets mentioned here. It matters to me. If it turns out that something I previously thought was good was bad, such as my prior heavy reliance on grains, I will change my position and not hesitate.

[Jason Stein]

...taking 60% of your calories from any one source would probably be a bad idea ...

Not all polyunsaturated fats are pro-inflammatory ... Omega 3 fatty acids are polyunsaturated ... no single philosophy will ever have all the answers until there is "one single philosophy" that is really just a conglomeration of all the most healthy aspects of each dietary school of thought.

Slizzard,

Firstly, it is not the consumption of polyunsaturated fats that is an issue for those trying to steer eating guidelines by paleo principles.

If you have eliminated or reduced grains, legumes and dairy, you are by necessity eating a high-fat diet. If your main sources of fat are plant-based and therefore polyunsaturated, you are consuming them in neolithic amounts, which is problematic, inflammatory, atherogenic, etc, etc.

It is not the consumption of omega-3 or omega-6 fat that is an issue, it is the ratio between the two.

Humans have historically eaten mono-diets comprised of approximately 3 to 5 items, so getting your all your fat calories from coconuts or ghee, for example, is not such a big deal. I compare this to the Costco-mega-market food consumption of which we're accustomed in the west.

See the Tokelauan islanders who, before becoming Westernized, got 50% of their calories from coconuts, their protein from fish, and ate the occasional tuber and fruit.

By the way, coconuts are a brilliant source of saturated fat, of which you should be striving to replace the polyunsaturated plant fat in your diet.

From a paleo standpoint, grass-fed animal fat is the best kind. Saturated fat is great. Monounsaturated fat is next best. Reduce total polyunsaturated fat as low as you can get it, and if necessary, try to balance your 03-06 ratios. (See the one million posts on fish oil.)

There is a single "philosophy" that can explain diseases of civilization, and that dovetails elegantly with biochemistry, endocrinology, and epigenetics, as well paleoanthropology and archeology.

From a medical standpoint, it's simple: eliminate wheat, fructose and excess linoleic acid.

Or: If it ran, flew, or swam, or is green and leafy, eat it. If it's not, don't.

best,

jason

[Joshua Naterman]

I can't disagree with much of that !

Just because we have done something out of geographical necessity doesn't mean our bodies will be ideally fed by continuing or going back to those practices. So many people are of multicultural background, even the white people, that our genetic ancestries are mixed. What our ancestors ate in different parts of the world 20, 30, 50 thousand and more years in the past is far more extensive than we think.

The groups of humanity were widespread for hundreds of thousands of years, and each locality had its own food sources that were to a fairly good degree different from many other locales. There has been so much ethnic mixing that today we have genetic heritages that are optimized for multiple ancestral diets. I won't argue the health issue because I know you've done a lot of research on studies regarding the coconuts and that there is a lot that backs it up.

I will argue that while many groups have thrived on fairly low-variety diets, they never existed with the sole purpose of improving athletic performance or health to the limit of what is genetically possible. No one has until modern athletes. The closest would have been the ancient Greeks, and even they did not know what we know now. For pure health and longevity, I have no idea what will turn out to be best between low-variety diets and high-variety diets so long as they adhere to the basics of what we know about how our bodies stay healthy.

However... With the massive nutritional gap that exists between what it takes to be healthy and what it takes to perform optimally, I think it is wise to stay open to the possibility that while we can thrive on low-variety diets we can excel even further on more variety. I do not know if this is true, or if there has been research in this area.

I do know that because there is no definitive answer, because there are so many compounds we need for optimal performance, and because we know that it takes a lot of different food sources to get optimal amounts of them all, that there is a good chance that a high-variety diet will work better than a low variety diet when training for maximal performance.

[Jason Stein]

Slizzard,

The idea behind paleo eating, once and for all, is not to "eat the foods that cavemen ate." Paleo eating is not about food re-enactment.

It is about recreating the internal metabolic conditions on which we've evolved to survive and thrive in a time of food abundance and cheap mass-produced grain- and sugar-based calories.

There are black and white commonalities that can be drawn between all paleolithic diets, even so-called "outliers" like the modern-day Kitavans.

When you stray from eating within these parameters, you invite diseases of civilization, beginning with cavities and proceeding from there. That is all.

best,

jason

[Joshua Naterman]

It is hard to separate "food re-enactment" from a system based on what people used to eat before the agricultural revolution. The metabolic conditions on which we've evolved to survive and thrive are based on paleolithic diets, because we are genetically better equipped to handle them. That's the basic premise of Paleo. That's why it's called Paleo. Re-creating those conditions means food re-enactment, plain and simple. You can't recreate the old conditions without returning to the old foods because the old conditions ARE the old foods. I'm not saying that's terrible or even wrong, what I am saying is that because of our ethnic mixing we can only separate out the processed foods and things we clearly don't perform optimally with, such as the high sugar and hydrogenated fatty acid content of many modern foods, and experiment with the rest to get the nutrients we need and not trigger food allergies. Paleo's a great tool for that, and it obviously works well. However, the mainstream paleo authors themselves discourage eating foods that weren't available a long time ago, some of which I have mentioned, despite the health benefits they bestow upon us when used properly. That is why I maintain my position that Paleo makes a great base and has many good solid ideas, but is not as complete as it could be.

I would also like to point out that in no post in this thread did I mention cave men. As for the commonalities, I am only aware of the generalities, which are the absence of refined food products like HFCS, hydrogenated oils, processed sugar, etc. There seems to be a wide spectrum of ancestral diets that people have thrived on for quite a long time that differ greatly in their available amounts of protein, fat, carbs, and the sources of each. Doesn't exactly make paleolithic man, who lived on all three continents for at least 100,000 years, an easy eater to generalize.

[Jason Stein]

That's why it's called Paleo. Re-creating those conditions means food re-enactment, plain and simple. You can't recreate the old conditions without returning to the old foods because the old conditions ARE the old foods.

Doesn't exactly make paleolithic man, who lived on all three continents for at least 100,000 years, an easy eater to generalize.

Slizzard,

Your statements above belie either a profound misunderstanding of paleo concepts, specifically the difference between re-enactment and otherwise, or demonstrate the inability to read and comprehend my posted comments. This is unfortunate.

And at the risk of once again beating a dead horse, both the content and make-up of macronutrients of stone-age groups are largely well understood. So it is very easy to generalize several key commonalities among paleolithic diets.

best,

jason

[Alvaro Antolinez]

As this is a high level discussion I´m taking a risk giving my opinion :| , I give it knowing that I´m only an "internet expert" not like most of you that have actual experience and a lot of study time on the field of nutrition, and know much more on the subject that I´ll never know in my life. But I have some experience on technological and science evolution and also I´m familiar with the development of medical and scientific studies and their publication, so I´ll give it and try not to say stupid things!

While I agree with Jason that Paleo is sound, solid and based on proved research( I got amazing results myself)but not everything is take it or leave it , I also agree with slizzard in that there is much to investigate, is still a really open research field, and in 20 years surely will differ from the Paleo we know now.

Paleo is not mainstream medical knowledge (yet) , and it will take a bit to filtrate to the general public or even field profesionals ( Basic and usefull knowledge usually takes time to take root, eg lemon juice took almost 100 years to pass from the english navy to the comercial ships as a basic way to avoid scurvy!all that time comercial ships got their sailors dying at unacceptable rates).So it will take time to measure long term effects of paleo and its forms on different and greater populations. The time, money and effort of the majority of the scientific comunity, and the evolutions of technics (as genetics, biochemestry or nanotech) will surely have a mayor impact on the way paleo is done(for better AND worst).

I also think diferent populations react differently with the same nutrients in some way(I have no study to support this, though), maybe 500 generations is not enough to stimulate genetical evolution but there is a portion of people who can digest milk and drinking milk is neolitic, isn´t it?. Who knows where other small (and I mean small not a gallon of coke a day) genetical adaptations will be found? mediterranean poblations tolerating better olive oil or native american corn or tubercles...?.

What we know for sure is the actual diet(and style of life) is killing and making people sick FAST and paleo should be in first line of public health.But small adjusting and tweaking in paleo is hard to measure, long term research on paleo fine tunning is not available yet and differences can be found at different individuals but we have yet to know why(please correct me if I´m wrong because your knowledge on nutrition is million times greater than mine).

Any way while all that studies take place we will have to stick to the ones we have now but.... I´ll keep enjoying some olive oil on my salads and the ocasional ice cream or cookie!

[Joshua Naterman]

Well, Jason has good points in that like I said, there are general comparisons between pre-agricultural diets that can be made fairly accurately. My concerns with Paleo are a little more semantic than practical, because in practice Paleo principles are easy to apply and use effectively, and work really well.

I get picky about semantics because when you define something it's important to be accurate, and pure Paleo is not necessarily accurate semantically. Be that as it may, in practice Paleo principles work well, it just so happens that there are foods outside of what it recommends that can enhance the program even further..

[Jason Stein]

Slizzard,

Based on our dialogue, I suggest you look up the work "re-enactment" as well as the word "semantics."

You can supplement a paleo diet with 30 grams/day of D-bol, see some spectacular performance gains, and be dead at 50.

Slizzard, Omegant: both of your ideas and theories about human evolution are misinformed, with regards to rate of evolutionary change of the human genome, rate and degree of adaptation to environmental stressors, measured and measurable changes via natural selection, etc, etc.

These are all mechanisms that are for the most part well understood and have even, god forbid, been measured.

If you're interested in communicating ideas on these matters, educate and inform yourselves on the subject. I know a bit about evolutionary biology and paleoanthropology, enough to know that you do not.

If you want an analogy to compare the changes necessary for our digestive systems, from mouth to anus, to handle digesting grass seeds, I suggest you skip the lactase enzyme and start with your nipples and tailbones.

My point remains the same. Olive oil, I don't care if it's pressed by the bare feet of Italian virgins, is not magic, is not vital for survival, or even necessary for "optimal" performance; consumed in enough amounts, it is a neolithic, inflammatory and atherogenic agent.

best,

jason

[Joshua Naterman]

We will have to agree to have different perspectives then.

As for looking things up, re-enactment, by definition, is to do something that has been done before. The Paleo diet itself is based on mimicking the diet of paleolithic man. That is re-enacting an eating habit. Like I said before, I am well aware that there is good research supporting this, and I have not ever said it's not true. All I have said is that there are additional foods that mesh well with that basic concept. This leads into the semantic problem. Semantics is the study of the meaning of a word(s) or phrase(s), taking into account the context they are being used as well as the technical definition of the word. I don't need to look that up, nor do I need to look up re-enactment. I'm well aware of what they are as well as what the words mean, and I do not understand why you would say that I do not.

As for genome mutation, it's generally accepted that it takes 20,000-30,000 years for our genetic structure to fully adapt to new conditions, from sunlight intensity to food sources. Homo Sapiens Sapiens has been spread around the globe for over 100,000 years, and one of the earliest Paleolithic cave arts is from 35,000 years ago in Verona, Italy. It is highly unlikely that the Paleolithic humans in the area we call modern day Italy did not eat olives in fairly large quantities when available due to the nutrient density of olives. This means that they were ingesting the oil as well. Olives grow throughout the Middle East and Mediterranean. There have been humans there for over 100,000 years, and fully modern ones for at least 35,000 years. Far, far longer than necessary to adapt to the available food sources. Those genes were spread throughout Eurasia by Alexander of Macedonia's army, who bred with people throughout the known world at that time as they passed through and settled. The Mediterranean and Middle East areas have repeatedly been conquered by others or conquered vast areas, spreading those genes along the way. To argue against this is to contradict every shred of historical fact that we have acquired to date. Despite the fact that there was more than ample time for full genetic adaptation and spreading of genes containing adaptation for olives and other local food sources, Paleo does not seem to consider that some of these foods are in fact Paleolithic in nature, or that many of us may possess adaptations that allow us to benefit from them without negative consequences. That is my semantic concern with the Paleo diet. It is well-founded and supported in Paleo literature. I am not claiming that Paleo is a pile of shit, because that'd be wrong and ridiculous. Paleo is, however, ideologically predisposed to not entertaining the idea that there are more foods that benefit us than just what Paleo says.

[Jason Stein]

Slizzard,

We might as well try the literal route because it seems my previous explanations re: Paleo eating did not come across.

Paleo "re-enactment" means not eating food not available to cavemen. It means re-enacting the so-called dietary conditions of paleolithic peoples. So for example, this means no no ice, cow butter, yogurt, or anything refrigerated or frozen.

A few of the hardcore food extremists I knew in SoCal would not eat meat they hadn't hunted and killed (or scavenged) personally.

They are, like Colonial Village theme park, pretending to live like cavemen, never mind that Stone Age hunter-gatherers survived on bugs, insects, roots, tubers, and fruits and vegetables that bear utterly no resemblance to modern fruits. They gorged themselves on sweets and honey whenever it was available to them and were not above occasional cannibalism.

This is in contrast to the viewpoint I have put forth in the many (many) posts above, in which leading paleo-style advocates, such as Doctors Eades and Cordain, coaches Joe Friel and to a certain extent Charles Poliquin, as well as many others, subscribe:

Paleo eating is about adopting the internal metabolic conditions on which we've evolved to survive and thrive in a time of food abundance and cheap mass-produced grain- and sugar-based calories.

best,

jason

[shinobi1]

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!

What I mean buy not a whole food is that it is just the oil and not the whole olive. Obviously if you seperate or blend a whole food its still a whole food as long as you eat all of it, but it has been slightly processed which is another topic. I just dont think you should be taking a tablespoon or two with each meal becuase you want to decrease inflamation or any other reason. If your replacing fried broccoli with broccoli with olive oil (and spices) then that would benifit you greatly. But studies have shown that simply adding EVOO to your diet increase the rate of heart disease (sry dont have a site).

Yeah, GOMAD is good gaining size/strength, its got plenty of protien and can easily boost your calorie intake into the mass gaining area... but for some reason my friend devolped hypercalcemia for it... I never looked into it, but did you ever experience any noticable negative effects of drinking that much milk? How long were you on it?

[Jason Stein]

Shinobi,

My buddy really put it on during GOMAD.

After a week or so, he also couldn't use regular toilet paper. He had to stock up on baby wipes.

best,

jason

[Joshua Naterman]

HAHAHAHAHA gross!!! I didn't encounter either issue when I was drinking a gallon a day. I didn't even know that was an actual protocol hahaha!!! I was just being cheap.

Also, I really like the last post, Jason.

Shinobi: I'm reading up. So far I see claims that saturated fat is less good than monounsaturated fat, but that no fat in and of itself is good except for omega 3's lol! There's always so much conflicting info. The biggest argument I see against EVOO is that it is higher calorie than veggies. Of course, I take it for precisely this reason lol! It's hard for me to get enough calories. I'm going to get some coconut oil too, to balance things out with some more saturated fats. I also eat 5-10 servings of veggies a day, and a few pieces of fruit along with 3 lbs of chicken. Yea, I eat a lot.

[shinobi1]

HAHAHAHAHA gross!!! I didn't encounter either issue when I was drinking a gallon a day. I didn't even know that was an actual protocol hahaha!!! I was just being cheap.

Also, I really like the last post, Jason.

Shinobi: I'm reading up. So far I see claims that saturated fat is less good than monounsaturated fat, but that no fat in and of itself is good except for omega 3's lol! There's always so much conflicting info. The biggest argument I see against EVOO is that it is higher calorie than veggies. Of course, I take it for precisely this reason lol! It's hard for me to get enough calories. I'm going to get some coconut oil too, to balance things out with some more saturated fats. I also eat 5-10 servings of veggies a day, and a few pieces of fruit along with 3 lbs of chicken. Yea, I eat a lot.

I found out about the protocol because of the thread I posted about milk on the other forum...

speakig of which the topic of raw milk has come up, does anyone know anything about raw milk?

yeah its surprisigly difficuilt to eat enough when your eating healthy, makes you wonder how most of the people in smartest country in the world are so fat. Slizzard, your probably right about EVOO, the reason why fat is more unhealthy isthat it has the most calories per gram and therefore any food that contains fat wont have as high a nutrient density because of it. JW what is your macronutrient ratio?

Shinobi,

My buddy really put it on during GOMAD.

After a week or so, he also couldn't use regular toilet paper. He had to stock up on baby wipes.

best,

jason

He was probably lactose intolerant,I think its needless to say that the lactose intolerant should not try GOMAD.

[Jason Stein]

Shinobi,

My friend wasn't lactose intolerant; it's just that milk past weaning isn't great for 85% of the world, and especially that volume of milk isn't a good idea unless you're a growing baby mammal or want the hormone release of one.

Fat is not unhealthy; absolutely to the contrary, it is essential. These macronutrients do not exist in a vacuum. Fat and protein keep you sated, and for example you will gain more weight from 1,500 calories of pizza than 1,500 calories of meat. Interesting and counter-intuitive.

Also, in general, people in North America consume less fat and fat-containing foods than at any point in the last 2 decades. Yet obesity continues to rise. Also interesting.

best,

j

[irongymnast]

Also, in general, people in North America consume less fat and fat-containing foods than at any point in the last 2 decades. Yet obesity continues to rise. Also interesting.

If you're interested in why, watch this video:

He explains it very well.

[Blairbob]

As for raw milk...

- Hard to get in some states, possibly illegal. expensive as all heck. It's about 7 bucks for a 1/2 gallon around here. Better to try buying shares in a cow and milking it from a farmer.

- Since it's not pasteurized, it has a lot of the bacteria in it that supposedly helps digest the lactose in milk. Proponents of raw milk state many people who are lactose intolerant can digest raw milk much easier than pasteurized milk.

- Very rich and if fresh it's not likely to be homogenized therefore it could be clumpy. Bottled raw milk at the stores is typically homogenized.

My buddy really put it on during GOMAD.

After a week or so, he also couldn't use regular toilet paper. He had to stock up on baby wipes.

I asked Robb Wolf about fat intake in meals or excessive fat and he told me it can have a laxative effect especially if the fat is of poor quality.

I once tried the gallon of milk (failed at 2/3rds) in 15m and yes, it will give you the runs to some degree. With GOMAD, you are intaking another 2560 calories a day, 128g of fat. Generally those on GOMAD are also on a mass gain diet. This means you better be eating your fiber, lots of it and I'm sure many that go this route-don't. Otherwise, you're stool will not have a lot of substance to it.

I've had another friend comment that drinking a lot of milk during the day also made him more flatulent (as did cheese) though it didn't cause any more bowel frequency.

I also eat 5-10 servings of veggies a day, and a few pieces of fruit along with 3 lbs of chicken. Yea, I eat a lot.

No kidding, you weigh 220. I think I could eat a pound and a half of grilled drumsticks every day though that my brothers made on the weekend. Yumm.

[shinobi1]

My friend wasn't lactose intolerant; it's just that milk past weaning isn't great for 85% of the world,.

It isnt good for 85% of the world because they are lactose intloerant, your friend could be ( and in all likely hood was) lactose intolerant and didnt know it.

and especially that volume of milk isn't a good idea unless you're a growing baby mammal or want the hormone release of one.

yeah its great if you want to "grow" no doubt about it

Fat is not unhealthy; absolutely to the contrary' date=' it is essential.[/quote']never said it was unhealthy, as a matter of fact I dont call anything healthy or unhealthy. I mostly compare things, eg. fruit juice is more healthy than soda.

for example you will gain more weight from 1' date='500 calories of pizza than 1,500 calories of meat. [/quote'] How do you figure? all else constant you would gain the same amount of weight.

Also' date=' in general, people in North America consume less fat and fat-containing foods than at any point in the last 2 decades. Yet obesity continues to rise. Also interesting.[/quote']Id like to see where you got that from... but its still meaningless, people are obese becuase they eat processed junk which keeps them hungry and in turn they over eat. Being obese has little to no relation with the amount of fat you consume. Like I said before, fat has more calories per gram than carbs or protien, therefore 100 grams of carbs has 400 kcal which is less than 100 grams of fat which has 700 kcal. so obviously the latter will cause you to gain more weight. IMO If people ate whole foods it probably wouldnt matter much what your marconutrient ratios were. I know if people only ate nutritional dense foods they would automatically lose weight... why... becuase its hard to get alot of calories when your eating thinks that accually have bulk in your stomach, just ask slizzard. A donut doesnt take up much space in your stomach, cabbage on the other hand does. try eating above your maintenance calories only eating leafy green. trust me it will take a concious effort and you get hungry if you dont eat enough calories, unlike with donuts where you get hungry because you dont eat enough nutrients. sry I alway have alot to say about obesity since it is so easily preventable and yet people continue to kill themselves. I feel it is the duty of those who know how to spread the word, so ingnorance is no longer an excuse (kinda like they did with smoking). Ill stop ranting now :roll:

and bobblair thats the whole point of drinking a gallon of milk a day, I dont think anyone would do that if they werent trying to gain mass

[Blairbob]

I do think that Lizard and I were mainly drinking lots of milk ( I rarely ever went above a 1/2 gallon a day ) due to cost and convenience. I still find it convenient at times to drink a small glass of milk for a snack if I don't have time to eat (especially at gym). Now, I've cut back a lot though as I try to only drink it during the morning or day or snacktime during break at work but not late at night besides small cups.

Just because you're on mass gain doesn't mean you should forget fiber. It's not fun otherwise. Well, it's not fun when it comes to toilet time.

[Jason Stein]

My friend wasn't lactose intolerant; it's just that milk past weaning isn't great for 85% of the world,.

It isnt good for 85% of the world because they are lactose intloerant, your friend could be ( and in all likely hood was) lactose intolerant and didnt know it.

... but its still meaningless, people are obese becuase they eat processed junk which keeps them hungry and in turn they over eat.

Being obese has little to no relation with the amount of fat you consume. Like I said before, fat has more calories per gram than carbs or protien, therefore 100 grams of carbs has 400 kcal which is less than 100 grams of fat which has 700 kcal. so obviously the latter will cause you to gain more weight.

Shinobi,

My friend does not and did not have any symptoms that would precipitate a medical diagnosis of lactose intolerance.

Those are also interesting hypotheses you have which are, unfortunately, refutable.

Isn't it interesting that the human metabolism seems to defy the first law of thermodynamics? Drs. Kekwick and Pawan demonstrated that patients on 2000-calorie diets maintained or even gained weight, while patients on a 2,600-calorie diet lost weight.

How do you lose weight consuming more calories? Maybe a calorie is not just a calorie.

best,

jason

[Razz]

Isn't it interesting that the human metabolism seems to defy the first law of thermodynamics? Drs. Kekwick and Pawan demonstrated that patients on 2000-calorie diets maintained or even gained weight, while patients on a 2,600-calorie diet lost weight.

humans DO NOT defy the laws of thermodynamics!! It is just a matter of some food requiring more energy to metabolize or convert into stored energy so therefore more energy is spent=higher consumption possible. For example fat goes to stored fat in almost 1:1 ratio where as protein is like .4 or something, can't remember the exact numbers.

As for milk that stuff is good for me, and always will be. I'm Scandinavian (traditionally the most dairy consuming place from old age) I have since like 1st grade drank between .5-3 liters with most days on 1.5-2 liters and never had problems. I went off for a month recently and thought I noticed slight acne improvement, but when I went back on to dairy no acne came back so I doubt what I thought I saw was real. Of course I'm rather disappointed that the milk here in Qatar is not organic and I can't wait to go back to organic good milk!

[Jason Stein]

Razz,

You are right!

I should have been more specific: the First Law of thermodynamics tells us nothing about the underlying mechanics of fat storage or loss.

What's more, those laws are only useful in a closed system, and rapidly lose utility when applied to say, nutritional science.

The First Law does not tell us whether you store excess energy in the form of fat, or bleed it off into the atmosphere by dilating blood vessels next to the skin, sweating, etc, etc.

best,

jason