Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet Forums => Off Topic => Topic started by: LePatron7 on March 20, 2017, 10:07:41 pm
-
Could there possibly unwanted adaptation to milk drinking?
For example, are large breasts on women a result of drinking milk over thousands of years?
When comparing descendants of non milk drinkers to milk drinkers, the descendants of non milk drinkers generally have considerably smaller breasts (ie. Native American, Asian [not insulting anyone, I find Asian and Native American Women very attractive]).
What sayeth ye?
-
I've long suspected as much. Not just larger breasts, though. I think, human adaptation to grains, at least,may have led to smaller, average hominid brains as well(-10%). Since the decrease in average brain-size did not coincide with a decrease in body-mass(ie a steady decrease in the key brain-size:body-mass ratio), this inevitably meant a reduction in overall intelligence as well.
Interestingly, scientists in recent times found more evidence to support the brain-size:-body-mass ratio theory of intelligence. Being more obese(ie attaining more body-mass) leads to lower intelligence(although the scientists have more wacky reasons to offer):-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1531487/The-greater-your-weight-the-lower-your-IQ-say-scientists.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1531487/The-greater-your-weight-the-lower-your-IQ-say-scientists.html)
-
If those cultures were producing lots of milk from animals, then they would have less need to breastfeed their babies and not more.
What's more likely is that larger breasts that stay large permanently and not just during and post pregnancy, as well as the ability to produce milk without getting pregnant (which is not present in many other mammals) were selected for because milk was shared among all tribe members, and not just the children. This craving for milk and dairy then could've led to the consumption of animal milk once livestock herding and domestication started to appear.
If this was so, it would mean that milk and other dairy could be considered paleo for adults.
http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/primal-diet/are-you-sure-that-dairy-isn't-paleo/ (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/primal-diet/are-you-sure-that-dairy-isn't-paleo/)
-
I'm open to the following observations being due to a pottenger-like effect in the overwhelming majority of the population and so I could be miscrediting the cause here but I don't expect so for the reason enumerated after.
It is outside of natural law and the evidence is written all over folks who are in the raw movement but consume raw dairy.. Mucus, dry skin, often more palid, and many times furry (as in extra facial hair in women), white layer on tongue, plus the consumptor begins to stink with that acrid-fermenty cow smell.
When I switched over to raw coconut cream/milk, made at home, all that stuff went away. Wish I'd dropped raw grassfed dairy a long time ago.
Then reason in that cow dairy, arguably the most common in the west and very common still in parts of the east, is meant to grow a 50lb calf to 1000+ lbs over the course or 1-2 yrs... Not a humanoid infant of 6lbs to 150 lbs in 20yrs..
Then factor in the epigenetic evidence against it...
Then just use common sense.
Then do whatever lab tests you like and still eat dairy anyway if one wishes!
-
Then reason in that cow dairy, arguably the most common in the west and very common still in parts of the east, is meant to grow a 50lb calf to 1000+ lbs over the course or 1-2 yrs... Not a humanoid infant of 6lbs to 150 lbs in 20yrs..
This argument is straight from the vegan agenda, and such nonsense... Lion cubs are born weighing 1 to 2 kilograms (2 to 4lbs) and by the time they're 2-3 years old they weigh up to 250kg under normal conditions. That's 125-250 times their birth weight within 2-3 years while cattle only grow to 20 times their birth weight within 1-2 years. So does that mean that zebra, wildebeest and antelope meat would be unhealthy for humans because it's "meant to grow a lion cub to 150+ times it's size in 2-3 years, not a human to 25 times it's weight in 20 years"?
Milk is only primarily fed to these animals by their mothers while they are young, a lion doesn't consume milk exclusively for 2-3 years and cattle doesn't consume milk exclusively for 1-2 years. Just like humans don't consume milk exclusively for 20 years. Most of the growth in cattle comes from grass, and most of the growth in lions comes from meat.
Stop being ridiculous. It's genetics that drives the growth. If you take a lion cub and feed it cows milk, it won't grow any faster or slower than other lions do, just like human babies don't grow any faster or slower than human babies when fed cows milk. Besides, we've had this argument before, cows are not even wild animals. Humans have domesticated them and artificially selected the ones which produced the best milk for human consumption, over thousands of generations.
Oh and stop changing thread names, it makes it harder for other people to follow them.
-
DPL is talking nonsense. For one thing, lion cubs start eating raw meat at 3 months and get weaned at 6 months. More to the point, raw cow's dairy, unlike raw meat, contains many special hormones in it, growth-hormones etc. etc., which help spurt growth.
-
Everything has hormones in it. Lion cubs fed raw cows milk develop normally also. Is lioness milk ideal for lion cubs? Of course. But cow milk is sufficient. The main reason that young mammals need milk is not because of milk's superior nutrition or hormones (which it does contain), but because milk delivers its nutrition in the form of a liquid, and at this stage, young animals typically don't have a digestive system developed enough to effectively liquify solid foods. And as you know, all solid food must be liquified before the nutrition in it can be accessed.
Birds, which don't produce milk, take a different approach to this problem. They typically feed their young offspring by regurgitating already liquified food.
Are you going to admit that this argument that HelpMeToHelpEwe made about milk is strictly copied from the vegan agenda playbook?
-
Of course not, as it's an absurd allegation. Your argument falls apart, though, since some mammals' milk is not ingestible by humans. For example, some doubt was cast on the feral child theory as human infants would die from eating wolves' milk as it contains way too much casein in it -though, the possibility exists that human infants could have survived on regurgitated flesh from a wolf mother. Cows' milk contains way too much casein compared to human mothers' milk, though nowhere near as much as wolves.
-
Which humans have died from the consumption of wolf milk? Or is this all a hypothesis with absolutely no backing?
Also, cheese is made by discarding whey and superconcentrating casein. I don't see people dropping dead from eating lots of pizza.
Some bodybuilders even use casein as a protein supplement.
-
Of course not, as it's an absurd allegation.
So it's absurd? This is from vegan.com , and it took me all of 45 seconds to find
http://www.vegan.com/videos/the-case-against-milk/ (http://www.vegan.com/videos/the-case-against-milk/)
Got cruelty? Got saturated fat? Got greenhouse gasses? Got somatic cells (a.k.a. pus)? Well, when you drink cows’ milk, you get all of those things—and nothing good that you can’t get from almond or soy milk. So why do people drink cows’ milk? The answer is quite simple: habit and brainwashing from the dairy industry.
Think about it: Humans are the only species to drink milk past infancy, and certainly the only species to drink the milk of a different species. Milk that is meant for baby calves, to rapidly grow them to 1,000 pound adults. Instead, we sell this stuff to adult humans who should have been weaned decades ago. It’s crazy!
-
Palaeolithic diet proponents also make similiar arguments against milk consumption, it's not primarily a vegan agenda.
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2006/12/hormones-in-milk-can-be-dangerous/ (http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2006/12/hormones-in-milk-can-be-dangerous/)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4524299/ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4524299/)
http://www.4.waisays.com/ExcessiveCalcium.htm (http://www.4.waisays.com/ExcessiveCalcium.htm)
http://www.13.waisays.com/zombie.htm (http://www.13.waisays.com/zombie.htm)
http://www.13.waisays.com/constipation.htm (http://www.13.waisays.com/constipation.htm)
-
Just like your ridiculous argument about how the world is overpopulated just because the UK actually IS overpop'd falls apart prima facie, so does Dar's. Why waste time? Post more epigenetics and you'll stay on the cutting edge of what matters. We need the smoking gun, clinical, CRISPR evidence for when these shitty non-human-foods cause aberrations down at the molecular genomic level. Gawd. Nevermind. Stand back, I've got this.
Dar, I eat 90% raw meat, marrow, offal, and eggs, so why don't you sod off?