Rich Gibson 

My view isn't scientific by any means, just intuitive. Human milk is for human babies. Cow's milk is for bovine (calves); at some point the calves are weaned and move on to other foods more appropriate. Seems reasonable to me that human babies should also be migrated to other sources of nutrition.

Rich

wolfchild

I am jealous that you can buy raw milk in your area...I live in a country run by "safety nannies" and it illegal to sell raw milk. I can only buy pasteurised milk and that's what I drink. I love milk.
Growth hormones and antibiotics are also illegal to use on dairy cows in Canada so that's a good thing.

springs

According to these sources, milk is not their largest calorie source. In fact it appears they have a high carb diet with fairly small amounts of meat.
-----
In terms of providing calories, the "big-four provisioners" in the Kenyans' diets were:

1. ugali, with 23 percent of total calories
2. sugar, with 20 percent of all calories
3. rice, at 14 percent
4. milk, hitting 13 percent

https://www.active.com/running/articl...s-in-the-world
https://runnersconnect.net/running-nu...enyan-runners/

Fat Boy

I kind of agree with what you've written, but it's completely goal dependent. If someone is riding hard intervals and looking for a good recovery drink and they tolerate milk well, then it's good. If that person is trying to cut weight and not riding hard, then it may not what they're looking for.

Side note: I bet that unpasteurized whole milk is pretty yummy stuff.

Fat Boy

I think there's probably something to this as well.

Dave Cutter

+1 Not just intuitive! That is pretty much contemporary advice too. Although for many babies... cows, goat, or milk-like baby formula mixes seem to work out OK when the human-milk isn't available. And... I don't know of anyone or any study (I mean... WHO would fund such a study anyway) that has pinned down an exact age as when a person should quit milk.... completely.

As I've aged (in my 60's) I've lost some of my tolerance to milk and milk products. I've been told that is pretty much normal. But I still pour skim milk on my cereal and sprinkle a little shredded cheese on my salad. And so on.

If you've never shared a meal or a beer with anyone that owns and milks the cows.
If you've never helped plow, till, plant or hoe the fields where your vegetables are grown.
If you've never climbed the ladders and picked the fruit.... or spent time at the mill where grains are ground into flour.....
Then you probably should have concerns about the cleanliness and purity of your food supply. It would be only natural. But if you've lived around the food supply you likely have confidence in it.

Humans have feared the purity of the food supply.... since people first found themselves removed from it. Reading scary material written by others who... have also removed themselves from the food supply... doesn't help anyone.

elcruxio

Ok guys, guys!
I'm still really interested in the whole "why grains are bad for you?" thing.
Could you point out a few of the harmful substances in grains? I have a fair understanding of grains and I do not know of a single one which can be considered harmful in the concentrations found in grains.

If you're going on about carbs then so be it, that's just a lifestyle choice but what about the other substances

cruiserhead

Milk is basically mucus. If you like drinking it, at least get a well-rounded picture of what it is.

bmontgomery87

That's just logic of survival.
They eventually have to eat something other than milk. The mothers have to eat grass and produce milk for their young. If they never stopped drinking milk, they couldn't effectively feed the children down the road.

This logic doesn't say we shouldn't drink milk.

Rich Gibson 

Sorry, I don't quite follow this statement. The double negative seems to imply we should drink milk. Is that your point?

Rich

bmontgomery87

Yes.
I apologize for the grammatical mix up.

I don't think there is anything wrong with drinking milk.
I'm sure, if consumed in excess, there are some potential negative effects. Nearly everything we eat has some type of risk/benefit to it. But people, athletes especially, have to assess that information and make a choice. I've found milk to be one of the best ways to get post workout nutrition, gain weight, etc.

My point was that of course cows eventually have to start eating food. A mother cow can't drink milk from her mother, then produce milk to feed her young, which in turn feed their offspring with milk. Obviously the cows have to eat other foods at some point, they can't be a cow-centipede.

Carbonfiberboy 

Thanks, springs. I misremembered. Milk is the highest single source of protein for the Kenyan runners, not calories.

ThermionicScott 

I'm skeptical of this.

timvan_78

OP: most of the data/studies/opinions being tossed about in this thread are not relevant to you or me, due to this very point. Milk/cheese are SO much cheaper in the USA for a reason.

lenA

must not be any hormones or antibiotics in Canadian gasoline either :-)

wolfchild

This argument that milk is for babies is just an ideological thing, it's like saying that bananas are for monkeys... I am glad that humans of thousands of years ago discovered how to milk animals. The are many different cultures around the world who have used dairy products as a major source of food. Think about it for a second. Without milk we wouldn't have foods such as butter, cream, yogurt, cheese..There is nothing better after an intense workout then a huge jug of milk, it's a perfect recovery food.

Don in Austin

Many still do, but not as many as used to.

Don in Austin

timvan_78

Gas/booze/tobacco are taxed like mad.

RoyIII

Girl Scout cookies are being delivered as I type. I favor drinking milk under these circumstances

Dave Mayer

Milk and cheese are much cheaper in the US because Canadians are served via. controlled 'supply management' and 'marketing boards' that help to maintain a 'fair' price for mom 'n pop Canadian dairy producers. AKA mega agri-corporations.

Which explains why poor Canacks are continuously lined up at the borders in their mini-vans loaded to the roof with groceries, clothing and gasoline.

Similar 'arrangements' are in place in Canada for the telecom sector, banking, much of food production auto sales, etc. On a whole, Canadians pay on average 25% more than Americans for a broad basket of goods and services. Plus wages are lower on average and taxes are higher.

But higher dairy and gasoline prices are 'good' for you!

cruiserhead

The majority of the world does not live on a dairy based diet.

Why? Because cow's milk (let's call it what it is- mucus and white blood cells) is for calves.
Milk IS for babies! That's a fact. Are you being serious?

Milk is the "perfect" recovery food because that's all you know or has been pounded into your head.

Carbonfiberboy 

Just in case your post isn't snark, I'll venture a reply. However my generally optimistic nature tells me that it must be snark.

Your first statement is conveniently easy to check:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ion_per_capita
Per capita consumption varies from ~360kg/year in Finland to ~79kg/year in the Maldives. This greatly outpaces the Finns' vodka consumption of only ~10 liters per capita/year. I wonder how vodka consumption has been this winter in the American Midwest?
A fun aside is that of course the traditional beverage of steppe horse nomads is fermented mares milk. I've always wondered what that tastes like.

The second statement is just funny, at least I hope we can find it humorous.

The third statement is simply false: rather it's because most of us have tried many different beverages and found that milk, especially chocolate milk, is the perfect recovery food. I don't usually have chocolate milk handy, so I mix ~5T sugar into a pint of milk. That brings the carb/protein ratio into approximately the recommended range.

wolfchild

Grains are inferior in nutrition compared to animal product... I have a little quote from around 12th century AD.

" The Chinese noted with surprise and disgust the ability of Mongol warriors to survive on little food and water for long periods of time. The entire army could camp out without a single puff of smoke, since they needed no fires to cook. Mongol warriors carried fermented and dried dairy products with them which needed no cooking. They also consumed raw meat.(Raw tartare).. Compared to Chinese Jurched soldiers, the Mongols were much healthier and stronger. The Mongols consumed a steady diet of meat, milk, yogurt and other dairy products, and they fought against Chinese men who lived on gruel made from various grains. The grain diet of these Chinese soldiers stunted their growth and bones, rotted their teeth and left them weak and prone to diseases and sickness. In contrast the Mongol warrior ate mostly protein and fat, thereby giving him strong teeth, bones and strong body. Unlike the Chinese Jurched soldiers who were dependent on heavy carbohydrate grain diet, the Mongols could easily go a day or two without food and still maintain their strength and have enough energy to keep going. "

There you go... If milk and dairy was good enough for ancient warriors to keep them traveling for thousands of miles on horseback in all weather conditions, then it's good enough for me.

elcruxio

Ok... Like, that is literarly the worst argument I have seen in the Internet. Just, wow....

First of all. Not a single harmful compound of grains could be found in your reply. No argument for why grains are bad for you. Nothing.
Second. Your point proves nothing else but the fact that of the two armies one had better nutrition (duh!)

But it is in no way an argument against grains. It is an argument agains monotonous diet. An argument agains not getting enough protein or other nutrients!
You can't compare foodstuffs simply by checking who lives longest with a single foodstuff. Nutritional science does not work that way.

The mongols had a relatively good diet with protein, carbs, vitamins etc. However they might have had fun times with number two if they ate no fiber but that's beside the point. IF they ate some greens or organ meat they might have even had a good balance with vitamins.
But what can be gleaned from your example is that the chinese ate grains. Just grains. You will die if you eat just grains. Not quickly but die anyway. But you will also die if you just drink milk, or just eat cheese, or just eat meat. consuming one single foodstuff is bad for you no matter what it is. That is why we have this thing called a versatile diet in which you kinda try to eat a bit of everything. Including a little bit of grains.

And just to make this clear. In my earlier post I was not critcizing milk or dairy. I was trying to get to the bottom of why you think grains are bad.

And aaaa...
"Grains are inferior in nutrition compared to animal product"
in what sense? in protein? You betcha! in carbs? nope! in fiber? nope! in vitamins? maybe, or maybe not. Nutrition is complex. Humans require two main energy sources (protein, fat) and preferably also require one other (carbs). Also, humans require smaller amount of other nutrients (vitamins, fiber, etc) Some of these you can get easily from animal products and some of these you can get from plant products. (I seriously should not need to spell this stuff out)

Carbonfiberboy 

So I looked to see where this quote comes from. This is from a book written by a popularist supposedly relying on long-suppressed secret documents discovered and decoded by . . . I don't have time to read this drivel. A few people who seem to know something about this period easily find many factual errors. I would be absolutely amazed if this account of the differing diets of the two armies is anything more than something the author made up. There's certainly no source given for it. Be that as it may, this particular quote has been seized upon by various primal diet self-promoters and spread widely around the internet, generally with no attribution.

IOW it's BS.