Like I said before, they were targetting the issue of excess calcium in dairy, the issue of raw vs cooked is not relevant since you have no solid scientific data to prove that raw dairy is more protective of bones than pasteurised dairy.
They can "target" whatever they want. They base their whole analysis on survey data from various countries according to the comparative levels of consumption of cooked dairy. It's not me who has to prove that raw dairy wouldn't cause any problems. That's not how science works.
Meat isn't dairy, it is an entirely different substance, not comparable to dairy.
Gotcha. So meat is very different when going from raw to cooked, but dairy isn't, because you hate dairy.
Dairy, ultimately, is meant to sustain and help infants of the very species it is created from, that's all.
And the meat of a deer is meant to help the deer run around. What's that got to do with anything?
Even the meat comparison is absurd in other ways - I mean, if you eat the meat of a poison-dart frog, you die.
It's only absurd to you because you didn't understand it. All you can do is name a few species from animals of a completely different class.
The Pottenger studies were unscientific because they based evidence on cats not humans.
How does that make them unscientific? Again, I think you don't understand what something being unscientific means. In fact it's you who is using unscientific reasoning by claiming to have proven that raw dairy is harmful because some people have some evidence to suggest cooked dairy might be.
The studies also did not focus on a low amount of dairy but on lots of it. Even the study focusing on lesser amounts of raw dairy involved the raw dairy component being 1/3 of the diet. For scientific rigor, they should have done long-term tests on cats fed only on raw dairy only. Interestingly, in the meat study on wikipedia:- " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_M._Pottenger_Jr. In one study, one group of cats was fed a diet of two-thirds raw meat, one-third raw milk, and cod-liver oil while the second group was fed a diet of two-thirds cooked meat, one-third raw milk, and cod-liver oil. The cats fed the all-raw diet were healthy while the cats fed the cooked meat diet developed various health problems. So, the study shows that, even including 1/3 of the diet as raw dairy was not enough to stop the cats from developing health-problems.
This has nothing to do with "scientific rigor". Nobody is arguing that a diet of pure dairy is superior to other diets. That would be like telling someone who claims that some salt is healthy to put test animals on a 100% salt diet, with no other nutrients being fed to them.
The studies showed basically the same result on 2/3 dairy as 1/3 dairy.
Wrong, cats were domesticated well before dairy was invented as a food by humans. Therefore the likelihood is that cats have been exposed to raw dairy as long as humans have been.
No, it was after. And in any case, they wouldn't have been fed dairy on a regular basis. Their feed was primarily the rodents and birds they'd catch, which is why they were kept around in the first place. They weren't pets.
Wrong again. Cows have multiple stomachs and extra enzymes etc. etc. unlike humans. Cats have simpler digestive systems more similiar to humans.
You keep reading whatever you want into what I say. I didn't say there is more difference between a cat and a human than between a human and a cow. I said there's more difference in dygestive abilities between a cat an a cow, than between a human and a cow.
You probably don't even realize it, but you're actually making my point when you say cats and humans have pretty similar digestive systems.
Also, humans are very poor at eugenics. Usually, any eugenics programs lead to horrors like the Habsburg Lip - take domesticated animals for example. Researchers have found that they on average have brain-sizes c.10% less than their wilder counterparts, and are generally more stupid than the latter. Cows with their unnaturally large udders get extra health-problems due to the millenia of dysgenics, and other domesticated species like dogs also have special health-problems if they are too inbred a breed.
That's because you're misunderstanding the actual goal of the breeding. Intelligence isn't always the best trait to have, just like for humans, it doesn't matter that much if cows aren't in perfect health, as long as they give us better health. Also, many of these problems are due to these animals being fed unnatural diets in modern times.
And, as I pointed out before, cows' milk is designed to feed a calf and get it to adult size within a 2 year period -
Designed by who? God? Because if so, well then God probably also designed us with the ability to farm cattle and get their milk. If you mean designed by natural selection, well then again, we've selected the cows to give us better milk for us, too.
human milk differs considerably from cows' milk as it is designed to grow a much larger hominid brain compared to a cow. Here is data showing the wide differences:- http://www.jbc.org/content/16/2/147.full.pdf
I didn't say it doesn't differ. Btw, in that link it kinda looks like they're not very different at all. Definitely way more similar to each other than all the other milks from all the other mammals around.
Also, keep in mind that the selection of cow milk may not be to suit the needs of baby humans the best, but adult humans.
In order to get an accurate idea of peoples' health, it is necessary to spend more than a few days or weeks to examine them. That way, he could have learned a lot more about health-problems that take much longer to manifest. Basically, he was a naive believer in the Noble Savage theory and focused too much on the issue of teeth. I mean, just by lacking sweets and modern sugars, the tribespeople would have had healthier teeth - it does not mean that they thrived on raw dairy consumption. *sigh*
Looking at people's teeth is quick and easy, and through his studies he found that this correlated to general health in peoples whom he had studied more in deph. Also, look at Pottenger's studies again. Tooth decay corresponds with all the other health problems caused by the cooked foods diet.
The evidence that palaeo-era bones were much stronger than in Neolithic times is all over the Net and easily googleable. My point was simple:- if raw dairy really helped build bones, then one would have seen some sort of positive effect on bones, particularly among Neolithic-era societies which consumed raw dairy but no grains. Yet, the bones of palaeo-era peoples were much stronger, indicating that raw dairy is at the very least useless re building bones, and quite likely very harmful.
They were also stronger than modern day hunter gatherers. There's many other reasons to explain this, rather than simply blame dairy. They were cooking more of their foods, for starters, even if they weren't eating much grains.
All classes, even up to middle-ages, ate large amounts of grains. Sure, the upper classes would have been more likely to have a wider variety of diet, but not on a regular basis.
Not really. Bread and other grains and legumes have always been associated with the poor. In the middle ages the nobility would use bread as a plate to serve food in, they didn't eat it, they just gave it to the poor to eat after the meal.
