I've made similar comparative harm arguments on a number of occasions. For example: the higher fat content in the organic milk [1] will kill you long before trace amounts of evil scary chemicals in inorganic milk will.
Strangely, arguments like that never seem to convince anyone. Anyone susceptible to the power of reason is already convinced.
[1] 1%/2%/3% milk has a wide range of acceptable values. I.e., 3% means "between 2.8% and 3.5%" or something like that. Organic milk is always at the top of the range, which makes it taste better. (It's also pasteurized at a lower temperature.)
I drink organic milk myself, never having considered milk that deadly. I think most people consume only a minor part of their fat through milk, dont they?
I'm a vegetarian who does regular, strenuous exercise. I probably get a lot of my fat through whole milk, which I drink with protein powder. I go through about a gallon every 3-4 days.
I've probably gotten most of my fat intake from milk at times; I have a home espresso machine and use whole milk for lattes, and if I'm really busy I tend to both skip meals and drink lots of coffee.
Definitely a pathological case, though. Also, unhealthy.
You're confusing dietary fat with your own body fat. The thinking for a long time was that dietary fat caused body fat, but that's not the case anymore: "Diets high in fat do not appear to be the primary cause of the high prevalence of excess body fat in our society, and reductions in fat will not be a solution." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12566139
Sugar, on the other hand, does turn into body fat.
Near as I can tell, the study suggests simply that 2000 calories (18% fat) will give you the same long term bodyweight as 2000 calories (40% fat). However, drinking 3.5% fat organic milk will give you more calories (and make you slightly fatter) than 3% fat regular milk.
Yes, the study suggests that dietary fat is not the cause of body fat. Fixing total caloric intake is how to measure that.
Drinking higher fat milk will make you fatter if you don't need those extra calories and you don't reduce calorie intake elsewhere in your diet. But that's a statement about calorie intake, not fat intake. For me, personally, I need both the fat and the calories.
Body needs a lot of things that can become poisons if you overdo them.
Constant drinking of water (forced or induced by failure of some physiological mechanism i.e. taste) will eventually lead to liver failure and death by poisoning. IIRC Chinese used this as a kind of torture/execution tehnique.
You'd have to drink a tonne of milk for this argument to hold. Steroids in non organic milk, and more so in beef, on the other hand are a much larger threat.
Has that actually been shown? It would be ironic to use one unfounded fear to dismiss another unfounded fear, itself raised to dismiss a third unfounded fear.
This article provides no evidence whatsoever that trace amounts of steroids or antibiotics in milk are harmful. It merely suggests they might be present.
Comments
I've made similar comparative harm arguments on a number of occasions. For example: the higher fat content in the organic milk [1] will kill you long before trace amounts of evil scary chemicals in inorganic milk will.
Strangely, arguments like that never seem to convince anyone. Anyone susceptible to the power of reason is already convinced.
[1] 1%/2%/3% milk has a wide range of acceptable values. I.e., 3% means "between 2.8% and 3.5%" or something like that. Organic milk is always at the top of the range, which makes it taste better. (It's also pasteurized at a lower temperature.)
I drink organic milk myself, never having considered milk that deadly. I think most people consume only a minor part of their fat through milk, dont they?
I'm a vegetarian who does regular, strenuous exercise. I probably get a lot of my fat through whole milk, which I drink with protein powder. I go through about a gallon every 3-4 days.
I've probably gotten most of my fat intake from milk at times; I have a home espresso machine and use whole milk for lattes, and if I'm really busy I tend to both skip meals and drink lots of coffee.
Definitely a pathological case, though. Also, unhealthy.
Fat is not a poison. Your body needs it.
In moderation. Once you get past the point of moderation, it is harmful. At least 35% of the population is way past that point.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db01.pdf
You're confusing dietary fat with your own body fat. The thinking for a long time was that dietary fat caused body fat, but that's not the case anymore: "Diets high in fat do not appear to be the primary cause of the high prevalence of excess body fat in our society, and reductions in fat will not be a solution." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12566139
Sugar, on the other hand, does turn into body fat.
Near as I can tell, the study suggests simply that 2000 calories (18% fat) will give you the same long term bodyweight as 2000 calories (40% fat). However, drinking 3.5% fat organic milk will give you more calories (and make you slightly fatter) than 3% fat regular milk.
Yes, the study suggests that dietary fat is not the cause of body fat. Fixing total caloric intake is how to measure that.
Drinking higher fat milk will make you fatter if you don't need those extra calories and you don't reduce calorie intake elsewhere in your diet. But that's a statement about calorie intake, not fat intake. For me, personally, I need both the fat and the calories.
Body needs a lot of things that can become poisons if you overdo them.
Constant drinking of water (forced or induced by failure of some physiological mechanism i.e. taste) will eventually lead to liver failure and death by poisoning. IIRC Chinese used this as a kind of torture/execution tehnique.
You'd have to drink a tonne of milk for this argument to hold. Steroids in non organic milk, and more so in beef, on the other hand are a much larger threat.
Has that actually been shown? It would be ironic to use one unfounded fear to dismiss another unfounded fear, itself raised to dismiss a third unfounded fear.
There is alot of research. The university I went to did alot of it.
Here is one article: http://www.alive.com/1301a4a2.php?subject_bread_cramb=455
I'm surprised I got down voted for speaking out about the truth:)
This article provides no evidence whatsoever that trace amounts of steroids or antibiotics in milk are harmful. It merely suggests they might be present.
Do you know what the measured difference is in steroid concentration between organic and inorganic milk?