Most humans can't digest lactose after infancy [1].
For those who can, we have limited research around the quantity in and frequency with which their ancestors consumed whole milk. Comparisons to modern milk, produced by stressed-out cows bred for volume and fed god-knows-what, are tenuous.
Even those who are included in "lactose intolerant" populations actually have no trouble chugging a huge glass of milk everyday along with some cheese and yogurt. Intolerance charts like you'd find on Wikipedia would lead you to suggest east Asians can't consume milk at all without discomfort, yet yogurt for breakfast, milk during lunch, a milk tea before dinner and ice cream after isn't even the slightest bit uncommon and causes no trouble for most people.
That some people can consume liters a day (or gallons, for those trying to gain muscle fast) seems to indicate that some people evolved to be fine with dairy.
Most humans can't digest lactose after infancy [1].
"Reduced ability" != "Can't"
Here (Europe) most can. So it's normal to digest lactose here. In other words, yes percentage wise you are correct. But is's not equally distributed.
So show a dairy industry advertisement, and show that milk is actually better than THAT. :)
lol at this ridiculous comment. Present the evidence please.
How many millions of years do you think mammals have been drinking milk for?
drinking your own species milk is very different from drinking another mammals milk. humans didn't start drinking /eating dairy until very recently in the last couple 100K years.
Who is Dr Miller. Does he present his research in medical journals, or just on YouTube? Got a link to a research paper? "Look it up on YouTube" isn't a valid response when someone asks for proof of something...
> " Also, there's the China study..."
China's a big place. Lots of studies going on, I'd imagine. Again - got a link to a research paper?
How about this: https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-canc...
"Milk and dairy are good sources of calcium and protein which are needed as part of a healthy, balanced diet. Calcium is important for teeth and bone health.
Studies looking into the link between cancer and dairy products have not given clear results. There is evidence that dairy products could reduce the risk of bowel cancer, but we cannot say for sure that this is the case. There is no strong evidence linking dairy products to any other types of cancer. We need further research to find out more about the links between dairy products and cancer risk."
This will shock you, but It's a fact that no animal produces it's own protein. Protein gets produced in Plants, that's where it comes from. Animals get their protein from plants. If you get it from a cow through milk or eating the cow meat, your just eating 2nd hand protein. Look at all the strongest and biggest animals in the world: Apes, Gorillas, Cows, Elephants, Rhinos they all eat plants and get nearly all their protein from plants.
Milk is actually terrible for your bones. There are many studies showing that it is linked to increased bone fractures in elderly people and also linked to increased cardiovascular risk.
I know this all sounds shocking, but if you want to know the truth, you should watch "Forks over knives" or watch "What the health". both can be found on netflix.
This doesn’t mean consuming a moderate amount of milk is somehow unhealthy.
Infant mammals. Adults consuming the milk of another species is recent. (About 10,000 years in humans.)
We have mixed evidence for the benefits of milk. It was a rich source of calories when those were scarce. Today, it might promote obesity. And good advice for some is bad advice for others. For example, milk boosts iron at the expense of vitamin D; that makes it favorable for light-skinned people at high latitudes [1].
Milk's branding as a superfood essential for kids is a product of post-war propaganda [2]. (TL; DR The U.S. government boosted dairy demand to feed soldiers. After the war, that production was threatened. So civilian demand was boosted.)
[1] https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/131/1/e144
production was threatened. So civilian demand was boosted.
There was wartime demand. Dairy farmers invested to meet it. War ends. Demand goes down. That capital must now be written off, re-purposed, or the demand re-started. We chose the last option.
Production as in productive capital or productive potential.
> Milk contains a type of sugar called lactose, which is distinct from the sugars found in fruit and other sweet foods. When we are babies, our bodies make a special enzyme called lactase that allows us to digest the lactose in our mother’s milk. But after we are weaned in early childhood, for many people this stops. Without lactase, we cannot properly digest the lactose in milk. As a result, if an adult drinks a lot of milk they may experience flatulence, painful cramps and even diarrhoea. (It’s worth noting that in other mammals, there aren’t any lactase-persistent adults – adult cows don’t have active lactase, and neither do cats or dogs, for example).
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190218-when-did-humans-...
Note, adult mammals. Drinking milk as a baby is literally the definition of mammal. Even the platypus, which lays eggs and lacks teats, counts as mammal because they still produce milk to feed their children.
Adult cats are generally lactose intolerant[0].
0: https://www.prestigeanimalhospital.com/services/cats/blog/wh...
Dairy milk is not nutritionally necessary in any age cohort. If you enjoy it, that's fine of course, but it isn't required if you don't.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/lactose-intol...
It's fine to research and make decisions about your diet which are in line with your own understanding, philosophy, and dietary requirements. Please don't pretend that your views on this are particularly useful for others.
Increase might be a better word than improve. Number of "diagnosed" cases might have gone up, but I'd argue accuracy of diagnosis has gotten much much worse.
There was a recent study showing only about 1 in 10 people who claimed to be allergic to antibiotics actually had any allergic or other negative response to them.
https://www.pharmaceutical-journal.com/learning/learning-art...?
Also, there's a fairly foolproof test for lactose intolerance.
Almost no infants are lactose intolerant, for obvious evolutionary reasons (mother's milk is full of lactose).
(Ref: 'Little Britain') https://youtu.be/FmD2Y6WxpIw?t=61
Here are my kids making vegan mac and cheese.
Recently went to a plant-based pizza place. (Unknowingly.) Pizza comes out. It's a white pizza. Cashew cheese all over it.
Biting into what you think is cheese and getting cashew is disgusting. Biting into a cashew, sage and roasted pepper flatbread is quite nice.
The language around substitutes likely needs to evolve for mass adoption. (That or make it literally unrecognisably similar, e.g. what Impossible and Beyond Meat are trying to do, at which point one likely surrenders many health benefits.)
Saying "vegan X" for a complex vegan recipe intended to approach the experience of eating X seems like a naming failure when considering the sometimes heroic effort that went into researching the recipe.
Calling it "vegan cheese" is thus doubly unsuitable, as it disappoints everyone expecting something like real cheese, and denies the vegan innovator a distinctive, intrinsically vegan name for the creation.
Veganism should really be appealing for vegans first, and then the masses will appropriate from that culture whatever foods they like best from it. A "mac and vegan cheese" will never be able to outcompete mac and genuine cheese among the people who don't really care all that much if dairy cows are exploited or unhappy. But a "macaroni and cashew-butter sauce" might be fine if I'm not really in the mood for real cheese, or want to try something different.
I'm perfectly willing to try original vegan foods, but when they go head-to-head with vegan imitation against non-vegan genuine, I will choose the genuine food most of the time.
Mind sharing the name? I'm out there in a few weeks.