RRCA Coach Lauren Lumley

MILK

I want to pass on the word to parents that cows' milk from

the carton has definite faults for some babies. Human milk

is the right one for babies. A study comparing the incidence

of allergy and colic in the breast-fed infants of omnivorous

and vegan mothers would be important. I haven't found such a

study; it would be both important and inexpensive. And it

will probably never be done. There is simply no academic or

economic profit involved.

LEUKEMIA? LYMPHOMA? THIS MAY BE THE WORST--BRACE YOURSELF!

I hate to tell you this, but the bovine leukemia virus is

found in more than three of five dairy cows in the United

States! This involves about 80% of dairy herds.

Unfortunately, when the milk is pooled, a very large

percentage of all milk produced is contaminated (90 to 95 per cent).

There is evidence of human antibody

formation to the bovine leukemia virus; this is disturbing.

How did the bovine leukemia virus particles gain access to

humans and become antigens? Was it as small, denatured

particles?

In Norway, 1422 individuals were followed for 11 and a half

years. Those drinking 2 or more glasses of milk per day had

3.5 times the incidence of cancer of the lymphatic organs.

British Med. Journal 61:456-9, March 1990.

WELL, WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS?

Is there any health reason at all for an adult human to

drink cows' milk?

It's hard for me to come up with even one good reason other

than simple preference. But if you try hard, in my opinion,

these would be the best two: milk is a source of calcium and

it's a source of amino acids (proteins).

Let's look at the calcium first. Why are we concerned at all

about calcium? Obviously, we intend it to build strong bones

and protect us against osteoporosis. And no doubt about it,

milk is loaded with calcium. But is it a good calcium source

for humans? I think not. These are the reasons. Excessive

amounts of dairy products actually interfere with calcium

absorption. Secondly, the excess of protein that the milk

provides is a major cause of the osteoporosis problem. Dr. H

egsted in England has been writing for years about the

geographical distribution of osteoporosis. It seems that the

countries with the highest intake of dairy products are

invariably the countries with the most osteoporosis. He

feels that milk is a cause of osteoporosis. Reasons to be

given below.

Another study in the United States actually

showed a worsening in calcium balance in post-menopausal

women given three 8-ounce glasses of cows' milk per day.

For the key to the osteoporosis riddle, donÂ’t look at

calcium, look at protein. Consider these two contrasting

groups. Eskimos have an exceptionally high protein intake

estimated at 25 percent of total calories. They also have a

high calcium intake at 2,500 mg/day. Their osteoporosis is

among the worst in the world. The other instructive group

are the Bantus of South Africa. They have a 12 percent

protein diet, mostly p lant protein, and only 200 to 350

mg/day of calcium, about half our women's intake. The women

have virtually no osteoporosis despite bearing six or more

children and nursing them for prolonged periods! When

African women immigrate to the United States, do they

develop osteoporosis? The answer is yes, but not quite are

much as Caucasian or Asian women. Thus, there is a genetic

difference that is modified by diet.

To answer the obvious question, "Well, where do you get your

calcium?" The answer is: "From exactly the same place the

cow gets the calcium, from green things that grow in the

ground," mainly from leafy vegetables. After all, elephants

and rhinos develop their huge bones (after being weaned) by

eating green leafy plants, so do horses. Carnivorous animals

also do quite nicely without leafy plants. It seems that all

of earth's mammals do well if they live in harmony with

their genetic programming and natural food. Only humans

living an affluent life style have rampant osteoporosis.

If animal references do not convince you, think of the

several billion humans on this earth who have never seen

cows' milk. Wouldn't you think osteoporosis would be

prevalent in this huge group? The dairy people would suggest

this but the truth is exactly the opposite. They have far

less than that seen in the countries where dairy products

are commonly consumed. It is the subject of another paper,

but the truly significant determinants of osteoporosis are

grossly excessive protein intakes and lack of weight bearing

on long bones, both taking place over decades. Hormones play

a secondary, but not trivial role in women. Milk is a

deterrent to good bone health.

THE PROTEIN MYTH

Remember when you were a kid and the adults all told you to

"make sure you get plenty of good protein". Protein was the

nutritional "good guy”" when I was young. And of course

milk is fitted right in.

As regards protein, milk is indeed a rich source of protein-

-"liquid meat," remember? However that isn't necessarily

what we need. In actual fact it is a source of difficulty.

Nearly all Americans eat too much protein.

First to be noted is that the recommended protein has been

steadily revised downward in successive editions. The

current recommendation is 0.75 g/kilo/day for adults 19

through 51 years. This, of course, is only 45 grams per day

for the mythical 60 kilogram adult. You should also know

that the WHO estimated the need for protein in adults to by

.6g/kilo per day. (All RDA's are calculated with large

safety allowances in case you're the type that wants to add

some more to "be sure.") You can "get by" on 28 to 30 grams

a day if necessary!

Now 45 grams a day is a tiny amount of protein. That's an

ounce and a half! Consider too, that the protein does not

have to be animal protein. Vegetable protein is identical

for all practical purposes and has no cholesterol and vastly

less saturated fat.

Finally, you

should know that the protein content of human milk is amount

the lowest (0.9%) in mammals.

What is the problem with lactose or milk sugar? It seems

that it is a disaccharide which is too large to be absorbed

into the blood stream without first being broken down into

monosaccharides, namely galactose and glucose. This requires

the presence of an enzyme, lactase plus additional enzymes

to break down the galactose into glucose.

 
At least half of the adult humans on this earth are

lactose intolerant. It was not until the relatively recent

introduction of dairy herding and the ability to "borrow"

milk from another group of mammals that the survival

advantage of preserving lactase (the enzyme that allows us

to digest lactose) became evident.

If dietary and sunlight sources

were poorly available, the ability to use the abundant

calcium in cows' milk would give a survival advantage to

humans who could digest that milk. This seems to be the only

logical explanation for fair skinned humans having a high

degree of lactose tolerance when compared to dark skinned

people.

The answer to this question is that low fat milk isn't low

fat. The term "low fat" is a marketing term used to gull the

public. Low fat milk contains from 24 to 33% fat as

calories! The 2% figure is also misleading. This refers to

weight. They don't tell you that, by weight, the milk is 87%

water!