In Nutrition, Reference

October 30, 2008

PDF Article

Lon Kilgore has seen milk support substantial gains in hundreds of athletes. In Starting Strength, of which he is co-author, Lon and Rip write, “One of the best ways [to provide the calories required to promote strength] is to drink a gallon of milk a day, most especially if weight-gain is a primary concern.”

Yet, there are a lot of concerns about the safety of drinking milk, especially for adults. Most of these concerns, Lon asserts, are based on myth and not fact. Every semester, every coaching seminar, and, seemingly every day, Lon writes that he gets at least one question about milk for exercising populations. Milk, he asserts, is safe for the great majority of the population, especially at the levels recommended by the American Dietetic Association.

The bottom line for those without diagnosed pathology, Lon concludes, is that not drinking milk is either a personal preference or a blind acceptance of unsubstantiated convention.

Free Download

Comment

35 Comments on “Milking Fact from Intolerance”

1

Ryan Powell wrote …

interesting article, considering I've recently given up milk since going strict on Paleo. I would be interested to see more discussion on the issue.

2

wrote …

Great article that just furthers the question: Who do I side with, the teachings of Paleo or Starting Strength? Does it come down to looking at performance in the short-term vs. the long term, drinking milk after a workout is great for recovery but possibly spikes insulin too much (according to research done by Dr. Cordain, unless I misinterpreted) leading to possible long term damage from continued use? Should I only use milk when looking to specifically put on weight but if trying to reach Super Wellness, stick with a strict Paleo/Zone approach? This is one area that will probably never have a clear answer but I love debating it.

3

wrote …

Oh my gosh! Next thing you know, there's going to be an article on grains-and how maybe a slice of bread a day isn't going to kill us! Like dairy, maybe it isn't so much grains themselves, but the proportion of grains to other sources of carbohydrate that is causing all this negative insulin-response in Americans!

4

wrote …

Wow, this marks the fist time I've read a CF Journal article and basically been 'pi##ed off' afterwards. I'd have to say this article is borderline negligent by not saying that ORGANIC and/or RAW milk would be the preference for anyone drinking milk. It doesn't take long to search the internet to find tons of information regarding how sick dairy cows are and how many hormones, like BGH, they are injected with to either keep them over-producing milk (well past their normal milk-producing lifespan) or to keep them from being sick. Not only that but the pasurization process kills off much of the natural enzymes that exist in milk, the same enzymes that make it more easily digestable.

I'm not demonizing milk but I sure am in the case of the dairy industry. They want to make money, like any other corporation, so the product that reaches the consumer is rarely what it's hyped up to be by folks like Lon Kilgore.

(The best part of the article is the look on the Little Budding's face on the right. Too funny.)

5

replied to comment from Dave Starrak

That's a great point. It's easy when you get deep in this stuff to put foods in either a bad or good category with no middle-ground. It's probably better to look at total consumption over time and stop diagnosing every meal by itself. So looking back at the article, 1 to 2 cups of organic milk post-workout might not be a bad way to go. Extending to grains, it's probably fine to have some here and there but the trouble comes when the consumption is chronic (typical Western diet).

6

wrote …

i don't think its possible to buy raw milk

i might not have a diagnosd pathology, but it does make me have unpleasant smelling flatulence. 75% of adults, and a higher or lower percentage depending on the race, have a decreased amount of lactase.

7

wrote …

i don't get why milk is so great -

is it the calcium? i'm not too clear about this, but i heard something about acid ash?! affecting bone resorbtion/resorption, and not really how much calcium you consume.

is it the protein? why can't we just eat meat?

is it the nutrients and vitamins? why not consume it from other sources. why drink the milk from the udder of an animal that's meant for baby cows?


that being said, i'll go ahead and read the article now

8

wrote …

most of the second page can be summarized by:
milk has protein, fat, and carbohydrate (which is also found in a lot of other unprocessed foods)

9

wrote …

Its possible to get raw milk in some states. Here in PA we are fortunate to have access and I love it.

The argument that the milk is only meant for baby cows begs the question, "Why would we eat the cow then, either?" IMHO, I'd rather drink the milk then eat the meat for a host of reasons. But I still do both.

10

wrote …

RAW Milk is the only way to go. Pasteurization kills everything alive. No beneficial bacteria colonization. Lack of enzymes to facilitate digestive processes. Its no wonder most people are sensitve to lactose. In RAW milk the enzyme galactase is present. Our Pancreases produce this enzyme but no where near the amount necessary to deal with all that galactose. In the process of pasteurization many amino acid structures and fat molecules are altered from their original state. Most importantly are the short chain saturated fats found in RAW WHOLE MILK. These short chain fats are a primary food source for the beneficial bacteria living in our digestive systems. No probiotics equals weak immune system. The Processs of homogenization is scary as well. They shoot the milk and some crazy PSI through a micro-screen which breaks up any of the fat. Fat is less dense than the rest of the milk and we should see the CREAM/FAT at the top. Conclusion milk is a "White Devil" along with sugar and flour. See Weston A. Price foundation for more info or visit Paul Cheks website. Dr Mercola has some great info on this subject as well. If you can not get RAW WHOLE MILK You should not drink that shit. And for you peeps concerned with not getting your calcium EAT SOME FREAKIN GREEN VEGETABLES.There are enzymes present in the greens which will actually allow you to utilize the calcium. M

11

Craig Cooper wrote …

So are we just ignoring the fundamental argument from the paleo diet that because dairy products are not a part of our ancestral blueprint, they are not fit for human consumption? Kilgore states:

"...in northern Europe (where colder weather and cow cultivation has made milk part of the culture for several millennium)..."

What about the MILLIONS of years prior to that when it wasn't? Just because there's no published research detailing the evils of dairy products, doesn't mean they are good. Cow's milk is designed for the optimal growth of baby cows.

Here's a link to the article mentioned earlier regarding milk's disproportionate glycemic/insulinemic response:

http://thepaleodiet.com/articles/Milk%20Final.pdf

And here's some research implicating cow's milk in the development of Type 1 Diabetes:

http://www.thepaleodiet.com/v4n12.shtml

12

wrote …

I stopped all dairy for a number of reasons

1) We are the only species that drinks the milk of another species, and only then has it become part of the diet after the domestication of other animals. There's billions of Asiatics who cannot and do not eat dairy and they don't seem to be suffering from rickets or other milky-deficiencies, all things considered.

2) I stopped needing my own species milk a long time ago, what logic would hold that I ever NEEDED it or should NEED any other milk again? A diet high in fish with bone and leafy greens (paleo) provides more than enough D and calcium.

3) To reiterate what has been already said, the use of bovine hormones and antibiotics is enough to turn me away from milk. The use of hormones means that cows weren't meant to produce enough milk for the human food chain. The need for drugs to kill the bacteria in that milk suggest that cows milk is not for our tracts. Cow's milk is for baby cows. Goats milk is baby goats. Monkey's milk is for baby monkeys. Continue ad nauseaum.

4) From a performance standpoint, I stopped dairy and my CF numbers got better. Now I live in India where dairy is in everything and I cannot avoid eating it, and my numbers are dropping off, from metcon times to strength/power poundages. This little bit is anecdotal, yes, but I also feel tired more often, can't concentrate as well, am constipated despite drinking tons of water, and have been more prone to colds. I can blame many things but I keep coming back to dairy as the culprit.

13

wrote …

A Jew's Take on Milk

If drinking milk is something unique about our species, why stop it? Discovering unique things about our species helps unlock our potential.

Milk is really special, it is one of the seven liquids mentioned in the Torah. The Torah is likened to milk because it wholly nourishes the Jewish people. As a Jew, I def will continue to drink milk. Whole milk.

14

wrote …

I drink a gallon of grass fed milk every 3 days or so. I love it.

15

Aaron Shaffer wrote …

There is no mention of the saturated fat content in this article. I wonder what his recommendation is: 2%, whole, etc? Most doctors I know only object to milk based on the sat fat.

16

replied to comment from Jonathan Silverman

I'm sure our species is the only species that gets off watching german poop porn. I can think of plenty of reasons that we shouldn't watch, or produce, german poop porn. I doubt you would suggest that german poop porn helps unlock our potential. So the idea that doing things just because they are unique to our species isn't a very good reason. And if a religious text tells me to drink milk I would add that as another reason NOT to.

17

wrote …

I really cannot understand the "other species" milk argument at all. How can we eat other species, how can you eat the damn cow, a salmon steak, or apples?? Where is this universal rule book that mother nature has telling what humans can and cannot eat and why don't I have a copy???

I def understand the organic and raw argument....who wants the rBGH, not me, plus the organic cows are generally treated better, which is worth the extra cost.

Give me some Blue Whale milk, I am sure that stuff has some kick behind it.

18

wrote …

LK - I’m very happy that so many people read the article and even happier that it made people think. Please realize that it addressed only the concept of lactose intolerance and its surrounding mythology, it was not intended to be a comprehensive analysis of milk, milk metabolism, and where it fits in the huge variety of diets trainees may be on. But I want to respond to one post from Geoff …


“Wow, this marks the fist time I've read a CF Journal article and basically been 'pi##ed off' afterwards. I'd have to say this article is borderline negligent by not saying that ORGANIC and/or RAW milk would be the preference for anyone drinking milk.”


LK – Sorry that my article irritated you but that means I achieved my end goal - to present some facts and make people question what they know.


I’m pretty comfortable with the dairy industry and the quality of milk I buy and that is available in stores in the USA. I actually have a preference for Braum’s milk since it tastes a little better than other brands available in Texas. I’d be silly to say that organic or raw milk is preferred as it is not preferred and is not the average food that that majority of US consumers have access to, can afford, or would consider consuming. It's interesting to note that if every agricultural producer in the world converted to organic farming methods somewhere between 25% and 33% of the world’s population would starve. But that’s an agricultural and social issue physiologists and exercisers don’t need to debate here.


“It doesn't take long to search the internet to find tons of information regarding how sick dairy cows are and how many hormones, like BGH, they are injected with to either keep them over-producing milk (well past their normal milk-producing lifespan) or to keep them from being sick.”


LK - You can find pretty much anything on the world wide web, some of it may even be accurate. Bovine rhinotracheitis (feedlot fever caused by bovine herpes virus 1) is likely the most significant disease in the cattle industry and the disease you probably found pictures of. Bovine growth hormone or other hormones don’t prevent or cure it. Again veterinary medicine related to the livestock industry is not relevant to the topic of human lactose intolerance.


“Not only that but the pasurization process kills off much of the natural enzymes that exist in milk, the same enzymes that make it more easily digestable.”


LK - We hear this frequently from people who misunderstand where lactase is, how it is produced, and how it works. All this occurs in the human gut not in a bottle of milk. If significant amounts of digestive enzymes that acted specifically to break down milk were present in milk jugs, it would not be a viable product for sale in any form - pasteurized, organic pasteurized, or raw. It would not be stable enough to put on shelves.


“I'm not demonizing milk but I sure am in the case of the dairy industry. They want to make money, like any other corporation, so the product that reaches the consumer is rarely what it's hyped up to be by folks like Lon Kilgore.”


LK - I’m pretty sure what is in the jug I buy at the store is actually milk containing the specific nutritional constituents listed on the FDA regulated label. And I’m not sure that I have hyped milk, but if I have I’ll be sure to send a bill to the American Dairy Council.


And really Geoff I was just trying to dispel some popular mythology not MAKE people drink milk. But if that makes me a demon along with my sister the small herd dairy farmer, I’m OK with that.


Lon

19

wrote …

Wow! I read this right when it was posted and have been thinking about it since, nice to see I wasn't the only one!

After attending the Basic Barbell Cert, as per Rip's advice, I started drinking whole organic milk to gain weight. His comments that I liked were, "Its what mammals consume to grow," and, "Its an affordable, easy way to consume more calories." When I checked out the label, I couldn't believe it was exactly the zone specs too! I was sold!

As a month passed and my digestive system had adjusted, I was drinking about half to three quarters of a gallon a day. However, I began to doubt its safety, because of paleo concepts mainly and insulin control. Followed by reports of IGF-1 and other natural hormones to cancer, etc. I do not know what to believe, as there are plenty of arguments posted for both cases. I understand the nature of the article, but I would greatly appreciate anything Lon could give us concerning this topic on drinking milk.

Until then, I'm going to stick with my classic rule of moderation.

20

wrote …

Ah, so you do have other motives to sell milk. Makes sense.

Nothing you've written has given me any pause for thought. Quality of food should be of utmost importance to anyone whether they are physiologists, exercisers or otherwise. I've recently started adding whole goat milk to my diet to see how I fair, I also use it to make kefir because I find it helps my gut so I'm not adverse to milk in the human diet. That being said and simply put, cow's milk from your local Safeway is not a quality item whether it's got great zone ratios or if it's cheap or whatever makes it sound good. It's quality is compromised the same way the quality of our vegetables are from agribusiness. I don't get your shot against organic food whatsoever; if all farming was organic then the price wouldn't be a factor because you wouldn't be comparing it to the inferior products. There are plenty of other comments that have appeared since my last post that I wanted to comment on but I'm glad you responded, too bad I'm still not sold on much of what you have to say.

21

wrote …

I support Geoff Aucoin in this argument, food quality is of utmost importance. He was being lenient when he stated what pasteurization of milk does to the product. He didn't mention the effect this dead liquid has on the body - although, believe me, he knows full well. The pancreas will take the beat down for the lack of bioavailability, having to provide the necessary enzymes to break down the food - this overuse of the pancreas will not bode well for blood glucose management. And, forget about allergies to milk, how many people have a sensitivity to the damn stuff? I believe that LK should not be making comments on a subject such as this.

22

wrote …

I am lactose intolerant. So I drink soy milk mostly. I put it to the group: How does soy milk compare to cow milk?

P.S. Sorry Lon, but I dare anyone to share a room with me after 12oz of milk.

23

replied to comment from Geoff Aucoin

The point made by Dr Kilgore is that without access to disease-resistant strains of cereal grains, pesticides etc, then much of the developing world would not be able to grow crops at the scale they need to feed their populations.

24

replied to comment from Michael Fitzgerald

"...having to provide the necessary enzymes to break down the food"

You seem to have missed the point again. If such enzymes were present in great quantities, you'd end up with a liquid where all the casein, lactose and milk fats would be broken down in a matter of HOURS. The fact that this doesn't happen when I open a bottle of raw milk would strongly suggest these enzymes are not present in the quantities you are erroneously suggesting.

25

Max Shippee wrote …

Interesting discussion...I feel the passion!


Here's food for thought....


(to Stu) The experiment, I believe, would be to leave equal quantities of raw milk and pasteurized milk on your counter & see which one breaks down faster. Better yet, heat them both to 98.6 degrees F (body temp) and see if that makes a difference. If you have roomates or a wife, I'm sure they'll let you know which one they absolutely HAD to throw away. I suspect it would be the raw.


The pasteurization process is designed to kill both bacteria and enzymes. The temperature at which pasteurization occurs is either 145 degrees F, or 161, depending on which protocol you're following (from Wikipedia). At only 115-116 degrees F, you've basically killed the enzymes as well. When people acknowledge that milk has been in some cultures (no pun intended, heh, heh) for thousands of years, we must remember that pasteurization wasn't invented until the late 1800's, and not practiced commonly until well after WWII.


I don't think that just having enzymes present would necessarily mean that food would break down in hours, just faster. Just like an organic apple will degrade faster then a irradiated one will. I would suspect that millions of years of evolution taught our systems to utilize the enzymes (rotting) of food to our advantage. I'm not saying we sould eat rotted food, but in Chinese medicine, they say that the stomach "rottens and ripens" our food, something that naturally would happen, we just time it so it happens in our bellies instead of the out in the open. I know that even pasteurized milk will eventually curdle and go bad, but how long does it take? The faster it happens on it's own, the less taxing it is on the body. The body makes metabolic enzymes regularly, and, if needed, can morph those metabolic enzymes into digestive enzymes. It's taxing on the ol' pancreas, but the body can do it. Having good quality, raw, organic food digests better because the active enzymes are still intact in the food. (we could get into a big discussion about soil quality here, since even organic food's enzyme content is largely affected by the soil it was grown in, but that doesn't involve milk).


Active enzymes make the digesting processs much more user friendly, even if they're commonly overlooked while building good health habits. Anecdotally, a friend of mine was over a bit ago and we ordered pizza (gasp!), he warned me that his fiance was going to hate him later, since the cheese didn't agree with his gut. I gave him a couple of multiple enzyme supplements and said, "Let me know if these help." When I saw him a few days later, he was beside himself. He had none of the usual "side effects" associated with the cheese or whatever it was about pizza that gave him trouble. None. I challenge people to try it themselves. I know when I'm taking my enzymes, I don't get that "oh God, I'm so full" feeling after I eat, the food seems to digest itself. It also means I'm hungrier a bit faster, but it feels a lot easier on my system. (to those of you who think supplementing with enzymes isn't puritanical paleo, see the soil parenthetical above.)


Incidentally, there's a great study done early the in the 1900's that's know commonly known as "Pottenger's cats." Pottenger divided a group of 900 cats in half, feeding one group of cats a "raw" diet, as in raw milk, meat, and the like, while feeding the second group cooked (pasteurized milk, cooked meat, etc.) After only 4 generations he had to discontinue the study, since, the "cooked" cats were disease ridden (with common human diseases ie hypothyroidism), pissed off (really, they were more aggressive), infertile, and even dead. If he switched them onto the raw diet, however, many of them regained health. I find this interesting in regards to many people's struggles with infertility in the developed world. I wonder how many generations ago we started pasteurizing & pesticiding & unnaturally fertilizing our food supply?


So, I don't know about you all, but after learning about the Pottenger's cats study, it was quite obvious to me that I had to make changes in my diet. I stopped cooking my cats, now I eat them raw.

26

wrote …

Argument is always loudest where facts are inconclusive - milk is a great example. Whereas Dr. K's points are virtually all factually accurate, most of the 'other side' has to argue what they fear, what they believe, what they theorize to be true.

For my own consumption, I love milk. I am concerned about an excessive insulin reaction, so I drink less now. As for the supposed risks of hormones, the damage to the product from pasteurization, etc - how would one even test for such an effect if they desired to? How could an experiment or experiments be designed to evaluate the effect of these factors on those who consume milk while controlling for other impacts (insulin response, too much total food or too much of some macronutrient, etc)? I would submit the factors would be so complex, as it is with almost all approaches to evaluating diet/health connections, that the scientific investigation of these things would be a long, expensive, and perhaps impossible process.

Until then, stand by for further bellicosity from the the true believers, like Geoff, who have obviously strongly held beliefs that the supposed benefits of 'standard' milk consumption for hypertrophy and strength gains come at some largely unpalpable but high price in present/future health.

As for the Paleo/insulin concerns, easy to test for oneself - and I will.

As for the issues wrt hormones - I predict these will one day be determined to be minor concerns compared to the more significant issue of excess/chronic insulin secretion (as regards long term health). One could drink a dose of rattle snake poison safely that would be extemely toxic if injected in the flesh by a snake - my guess is that whatever hormones come through the milk are digested in the gut harmlessly.

Geoff - fwiw, I believe Dr. K is right about the organic stuff. Mankind made a bad deal with agriculture long ago - we're 'addicted' to it now. If we stopped the high volume, low cost production methods we 'know and love', the impact would be very harsh on the poor the world over.

Paul

27

wrote …

Based on personal experience, I believe yogurt and other probiotic supplements (e.g. L. Acidophilus) ameliorate lactose intolerance until an adequate probiotic bacteria population is developed in the gut. Then regular dairy consumption is necessary to maintain the population. I believe the process would take longer and be less comfortable without a supplement.


Apparently, this belief has some support. Just found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probiotic#Managing_Lactose_Intolerance

28

replied to comment from Andrew Vincent

Soy milk is nothing like cow's milk, so there's not really any comparison. As to your dare...try raw milk (obviously from a source you trust). Most friends that have made similar comments to me are surprised to find that their body doesn't have the reaction to raw/fresh milk that it does from pasteurized/commercial milk.

29

replied to comment from Geoff Aucoin

Geoff,
I am a big proponent of organic and raw foods. I try to eat only the meat I procure myself hunting and fishing, guaranteeing a free range, all-natural source. Notwithstanding this preference, we must understand that price is a function of supply and demand, not relative quality. It is irrelevant whether we have "inferior products" to compare with our best natural food. One third of the world's population simply could not afford to eat if we all switched to organic food production. Even worse, there would not be enough food to feed all of us, and the poor would starve. These laws of economics are as undeniable as the physics controlling your snatch. Therefore, I accept that not everyone can eat the highest quality raw foods, and I find no evidence yet of harm in pasteurized milk.
Best,
GAC

30

wrote …

Lon,

Have you read the "China Study" by Campbell. In his book he discusses the many experiments on the diets of rats and mice. In one experiment, the rats that were fed a diet based on casein protein (the protein that is found in milk and meat) ALL had liver cancer and died within 2 years. The rats that were fed plant based proteins thrived past the 2 year point (2 years is about the natural lifespan of rats). The dietary needs of rats and humans are very similar by weight and body mass.

He also found that countries with the higher milk consumption had much higher breast cancer rates.

Milk was also found to be a major cause in Type 1 diabetes among children. Even the Society of Pediatrics recommends children with family history of diabetes stop drinking milk past 2 tears of age.

The book is written like a research paper and is very scientific in nature. There was no guess work, it was all carefully researched or experimented on. There are references for every fact or argument in the footnotes.

The China Study is about out diets vs. long term health. Now I don't know how this will effect my performance with WOD's and recovery, but I have been doing fine with my improvements so far. I am on a mostly plant based diet, eating meat occasionally (4 oz a WEEK). I do eat salmon and tuna. And no dairy.

31

wrote …

Here is an quick overview of the book from their website:

Early in his career as a researcher with MIT and Virginia Tech, Dr. Campbell worked to promote better health by eating more meat, milk and eggs -- “high-quality animal protein … It was an obvious sequel to my own life on the farm and I was happy to believe that the American diet was the best in the world.”

He later was a researcher on a project in the Philippines working with malnourished children. The project became an investigation for Dr. Campbell, as to why so many Filipino children were being diagnosed with liver cancer, predominately an adult disease. The primary goal of the project was to ensure that the children were getting as much protein as possible.

“In this project, however, I uncovered a dark secret. Children who ate the highest protein diets were the ones most likely to get liver cancer...” He began to review other reports from around the world that reflected the findings of his research in the Philippines.

Although it was “heretical to say that protein wasn’t healthy,” he started an in-depth study into the role of nutrition, especially protein, in the cause of cancer.

The research project culminated in a 20-year partnership of Cornell University, Oxford University, and the Chinese Academy of Preventive Medicine, a survey of diseases and lifestyle factors in rural China and Taiwan. More commonly known as the China Study, “this project eventually produced more than 8000 statistically significant associations between various dietary factors and disease.”

The findings? “People who ate the most animal-based foods got the most chronic disease … People who ate the most plant-based foods were the healthiest and tended to avoid chronic disease. These results could not be ignored,” said Dr. Campbell.

32

replied to comment from Max Shippee

I learned some very interesting information in the book Milk: The Surprising Story of Milk Through the Ages, (with recipes) by Anne Mendelson. I love milk and cheese, and it is very interesting to read all about the various milks (cow, buffalo, goat, camel, etc) and how people have eaten them in different places at different times. For instance, she says that fresh unsoured milk was not in vogue until the nineteenth century.


Before ice or refrigeration people who lived in hot places would milk their animal, then the hot milk would almost instantly start to ferment into some form of yogurt. The naturally occurring good bacteria in the milk would start to work long before the purification bacteria would settle in from the air. People got clabbered (cultured) milk, yogurt, sour cream, etc. If they made butter if would be cultured butter.


Anyway, people who cannot drink sweet fresh milk, can often drink soured milk (buttermilk), or yogurt, or other cultured products. The lactic-acid bacteria have broken down the lactose already.


I learned how to make my own great yogurt from this book – heat milk, mix in a bit of live yogurt after it’s cooled to 110 degrees F, then keep it at about that temperature for 4-6 hours. Drain whey if you want it less sour. A similar process with some starter buttermilk and room-temperature fermentation gives you cultured buttermilk. Yum!

33

wrote …

Interesting discussion. Just a comment about the oft-cited evolutionary bias against milk consumption: Evolution occurs a lot more quickly than a few million years. Dr. K's article, if correct, cites lactose intolerance of only 5% in Northern European populations and as high as 90% in some Asian and African populations. This is evidence of natural selection FOR milk consumption. With such a low rate of lactose intolerance in Northern Europe, it could be assumed that most people who couldn't drink milk comfortably were selected against, i.e., they died before having children and passing on this genetic trait. Those that could drink milk survived and reproduced, hence the high rates of milk tolerance in that population.

Another explanation is drinking milk was sexier in Northern Europe but that was way before Claudia Schiffer appeared in the Got Milk ads.

34

wrote …

Geez, I forgot a key sentence in my argument about evolution. Here it is.

Evolution occurs shortly over the course of generations, not necessarily eons. Among others, see Peter Grant's work as popularized in The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in our Time. Thus, the claim that the paleo diet is what we should be eating now because it is our evolutionary heritage is fallacious.

35

wrote …

I have been a vegan for 7 years and mostly raw vegan for the last year. From what I've read Raw rice milk is the best out there but if you must have cows milk your best bet is Raw unprocessed milk from organic farmers

Leave a comment

Comments (You may use HTML tags for style)