The debate:

KTC, "hormones need to be injected" -- source?
but that's not necessarily what we're talking about. We're talking about synthetic hormones (or substances that mimic the effects of hormones). There is enough variety of those that some can be ingested...

Anyway, what I was talking about was based on a study that found BPA and Phthalates in peoples' urine, not some sort of theoretical approach. (which don't work too well b/c not enough is known about what goes on in human bodies.)
Quote:
http://mobile.menshealth.com/site?sid ... 00030281eac____&full=true


...and now, time to get disorganized. =P


Japanese: even if mice =/= humans, they are similar enough that results in mice are worth investigating further in humans at least... it may not be solid proof, but it is a strong suggestion.

finnish study... well, another thing that's correlated with the diabetes spike is better marketing strategies. specifically, candy marketing strategies. . . (for example, placing them where people are more likely to walk by, like at registers.)


also, ktc your teacher & dad proves nothing. There's not even a large enough sample to decide if a correlation is present, much less any causation. 'sides, just b/c there's not enough to cause breasts to start producing milk doesn't mean there's not enough to cause other problems.


===
more specific replies:

Aeternus: The only way I know to get away from plastic is to buy milk in glass bottles like they had in the olden days. And to go to a butcher for your meat, make your own yogurt, etc.

Aeternus & KTC: What Argoyle said. It's cheaper to ship them in plastic because egg shells can crack during transport so a plastic bag doesn't need as much padding. .: There's more room for actual egg in the truck.

Quote:

No. Mice are humans are not similar.Nor are they close enough for a study like that Japanese did to matter.

As for the hormones, like KTC said, just because you ingest it doesn't mean the body absorbs it. Just because traces of it were found in the urine, doesn't mean the body used it. The body excretes a lot of chemicals.

hormones gotta be injected: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22349307/

as for the urine: that doesn't really prove anything as mopiece said. It just means the hormone wasn't absorbed. So even if the hormone is present, that doesn't mean its actually doing anything.

japanese: it doesn't even strongly suggest. humans and mice have different hormone systems to begin with so what applies to mice doesn't apply to humans necessarily.

finnish: not seeing your point here.

next: We don't know the size of the study to begin so it could have been fairly small making my cases relevant. *shrugs*
Actually, now I think about it we don't even know what were the factors of the individuals that were being tested: income, race, sex, medical history, lifestyle (as in how they grew up and such) etc.

Mopiece: Why do we study on mice at all then? (Wolfie is thoroughly confused)

KTC:
Finnish: I'm agreeing w/ what you said about correlations. ie there could be another cause. (hey, I said that part was disorganized... that was a response to canta)

Hormones: That article amuses me b/c of the Men's Health label, which is the same magazine I got my info from. I guess the plastic isn't protein based.


Both of ya:
if I had any other replies other than 'I can accept that' or 'I agree' to anything else you had, I forgot them =P

Mice are cheap. They also reproduce quickly, and have lots of babies. And they are mammals. Also, they can be pretty docile if handle from birth.

@wolfie: we use them because they are a good model organism.

They are cheap to maintain, have large amounts of offspring, grow up rapidly, and have similar genome to us. According to wiki, mice are primarily use for gene manipulation/genetic diseases since their genome is similar to ours.

finnish: ahh okay.

hormones: lol.

golf balls are also cheap but their application to rocket science research is limited. . .

Quote: (the wiki article)
Like I said. similar.
But I'll take y'all's words on the Japanese study overreaching the scope of their usefulness.

Quote:
from my source above.
The article seems to interpret this one too liberally as well though, since this was probably studied using surveys at different locations which means there is little control of extraneous variables.

@wolfie:

gene thing: but we don't use the genes in the same way (alt splicing, regulation factors, etc), hence why mice aren't used as clear proof that the same something is happening in humans.

An extreme example of such splicing is: In my euk class, my teacher gave a freaky example where a fly gene (DSCAM) can potentially be translated into 38016 different forms of one protein. o_o!

Also, note that the japanese experiment was where they just fed milk rather than manipulate genes.

Genes manipulation is a stronger suggestion because you can find find homologs of genes (genes similar in both humans and mice) and manipulate them accordingly. If you knock out the mice gene (which is similar to human genes) than it suggests that you will probably get similar results in humans. (for example, knock out an eye gene homolog and you'll probably get blind mice and humans). its deceptively straightforward Obviously its not since mice and humans genomes are different and we use it differently, but its a stronger suggestion in general. There's fewer variables (age, sex, etc) to worry about since you're manipulating the source directly.

That's probably why mice work well to study inherited genetic diseases. (genetic disease= gene mutation=knock out the mice genes that are homologs of human genes so get the appropriate diseased mice to study)

But feeding milk: there's no gene manipulation going on and no homologs to work off. The factors that affected humans (growth, race, age, medical history, etc) comes into play for the mice (the whole mice =/= human is a major part) so its a weak suggestion.

Also, canta didn't give anymore information on the japanese one regarding: how much milk was given daily and what type of milk. what was their diet to begin with. how old were the mice. what type of mice were they. how large of a study we're talking about, etc.

its gets weaker if you start thinking about how much milk daily the mouse takes equates to how much a human would need to drink. how long that equates. etc.

Okay, i hope that wordy convoluted explanation made any type of sense. XD

well it was mainly repetition of a single concept so yeah it did.

I'm used to reading textbooks. =P

thanks for the explanation

*facepalm* aww man, i don't wanna sound like a textbook DX

lol

np

Quote:

No it doesn't. I did note this by saying it was a weak study, but that it did raise questions. Finding such problems is a red flag in the medical community, not something to be ignored. It begs for more research.

Quote:

This is called the fallacy of the biased sample. You obviously won't see trends when you look at one person. However, it should be noted that women in European, milk-consuming countries develop more quickly than in areas that have low incidence of milk intake. Again, though a weak point, the incidence is noted. Furthermore, the presence of hormones need not be noticeable immediately. It may have wide-ranging effects on things such as breast cancer in the long run. Not a reason to ban milk, but definitely a reason to ask ourselves why we continue to drink something that is a natural oddity.

Quote:

Yet again, note that I never said there was a correlation. I said there was an issue of predisposition. I tend to be very careful in choosing my words. Note also that I said "additional factors like milk consumption". The diabetes epidemic is not caused by one thing alone. However, when the factors add up, you have a problem. Your father is "prediabetic" according to you. Think of how one additional factor could push him over the edge.

Quote:

This was expected, however, please note that for any of the following to occur, one would have to drink several times the amount of average cow milk consumption. Cow's milk in any concentration is questionable, just by the very nature of the substance. Human bodies were not meant to consume the milk of other species, evolutionary mechanisms tend not to exist in dealing with that.

Soybeans are easily digested by the vast, vast majority of the human population. I'm comparing a glass or two of cow's milk against a glass or two of soy milk. By evaluating some of the language in your source, it is clear that they are focusing on the effects of high concentrations of substances found within soy milk, not on the practical effects or issues dealing with average soy milk consumption. Thus, your source isn't relevant.

Quote:

I'm not neglecting them at all. Almost all calcium and Vitamin D in milk is artificial. Most humans would get more than enough calcium and vitamin D just by eating a normal diet and getting 20-30 minutes of sunlight a day. Whatever calcium or vitamin D is added onto milk is irrelevant since people are adding them into things like orange juice and yes, soy milk.

As for protein in milk, it also isn't a very good point. We don't live in a third world country, the amount of protein in a liquid isn't really relevant to us. We can get chicken or pork or beef anytime we want. But to be fair, soy milk has an equal amount of protein per serving, further making this point moot.

As for it being a cooking ingredient, I don't seem to be able to connect the dots for your point. Everything consumable is a cooking ingredient, it doesn't make milk special. I just don't think that the hype has anything to do with health benefits, because there really aren't any.

Quote:

That's a fair statement. It's also something completely irrelevant to the point that I have been trying to make. It seems as if though you perceive me as someone who wants to convince the world to ban cow's milk, when in reality, I'm just proposing that all of the alleged health benefits of milk, were just PR scams for a cultural practice.

Milk is, in and of itself, something that human beings should really not be drinking, as evidenced by the fact that those who can, make up the minority of the world's population, and are rapidly shrinking in number. It is fat suspended in water, a nutrient source for calves, not humans.

However, there's nothing wrong with liking the taste of milk, or enjoying a glass of milk every day. There's nothing wrong with adding 2% milk to your tea. I just don't think that people should attempt to justify it with false advertising, and misleading claims that milk should be considered "healthy".

In fact, let's not compare cow's milk to soy milk. I would venture that plain water is more healthy than milk, as a matter of fact. If people drank a glass of water in place of a glass of milk, it would probably be better for their health.

Scratch that, even replacing a daily glass of milk with half a glass of red wine is better for your health XD

Quote:

Actually, it doesn't raise that many questions. You can NOT compare the effects of milk on mice to humans. We use mice to study genetics, not anything to do with organs. Just because it effects mice doesn't mean it'll do anything to humans. If it was from a different animal that has similar bodies to ours, then that would be a different story.


Quote:

It's not that irrelevant at all. The point you're making is cow milk is unhealthy, and soy milk is healthy and people should drink soy milk. However, you have not been able to point to any correlations that milk is bad for people.

Quote:

It was never an issue on how many questions were raised, just that they were.

Furthermore, you are very much mistaken in the assumption that their usage is limited only to genetics.

We do use mice to study organs, because they are actually arranged in a way that is very similar to the way humans are. In fact, drug testing is performed on mice, with very similar results. Mice exhibit the same symptoms of drunkness, for example. In addition, mice who are given morphine do not feel their tails being tipped into boiling water XD

It just goes to show that size doesn't matter. When you get down to the biochemistry, rats are actually very good predictors of human function.

Of course, nothing conclusive, but yes, the questions are raised.


Quote:

I don't understand why you insist on saying that, especially when I have clarified several times that this is not the case.

In interpreting what I say, you essentially have two options:

1. You can believe that I had a purpose, and perhaps I was not clear enough on what that purpose was, and now, I am trying to clarify things such that they make sense.

2. You can believe that there was no misconception, that you are right in describing what I was trying to convey. The conclusion is that I am insane.

If you're going to pick #2, then there won't be much reason left to go on further, that is, if you choose to hear what you want to hear and not what I'm actually trying to say. If you're going to speak for me, that takes the fun out of a discussion, doesn't it ?

My main goal is and always was that milk was being portrayed in a deceiving light. I'm not trying to convince everyone that milk is evil, or that it should be banned, just for people to stop thinking of it as a "healthy food".

Why did I bring up the notion of antibiotics and hormones? To show that milk, like anything, has its dirty laundry. Normally, that's fine, but there's really no use in deluding the public into the false notion that it is a "health food". The consumption of milk is cultural, that's that.

Why did I bring up soy milk? As a comparison. I could have used water, or half a glass of wine as comparison, either would have been healthier than a comparable serving of milk.

Milk is fat in water. In the United States of America, we really don't need to be consuming fat in beverage form. Even two small glasses of 1% skim milk have as much fat and more calories than a twinkie.

Mopiece, instead of trying to describe what you thought I was trying to say, perhaps it would be better if we just tried to move on with the discussion. For a long time, the milk industry has been promoting their calcium and vitamin D, and it isn't any different from me bragging that I have a cell phone or an ipod.

Explain to me why a person who has never consumed milk, should begin drinking milk on a daily basis. If you can answer that, then we have a discussion

Quote:

And you're mistaken that just because something effects mice, will effect humans too.

Quote:

Because that's what you're writing says, no matter what you think it says.

You say milk is unhealthy and people shouldn't drink it. You say soy milk is healthy and people should drink it. Thus why I pointed out you HAVE not shown any correlations to illnesses that involve milk.

Quote:

Because KTC has already listed the healthy effects milk offers, and I do not wish to repeat them.

@canta: since mopiece has already answered the important bits and I feel currently too lazy to read long walls of what looks like declaration without proof and/or blatant ignoring my wall of explanation, I would like to add this: I would really like to see your sources.

You have pointed to several studies or notes yet provide no back up for them: finish, japanese, a supposed notice about european women, etc.
where are these supposed correlations.

Quote:

I never said that it conclusively will, just that the possibility exists and makes it an issue worth further researching. Apparently, your position is that all research is meaningless.

Quote:

Then listen to what I am trying to convey, not what is typed on text. You're speaking to me as if though I'm a computer and not a person. Imagine if the situation was reversed and you had a message you wanted to get through, but people misunderstood you. You try to clarify, but people keep pointing at the writing and saying "No, you meant this. No, you meant this." It doesn't really make for good discussion.

Quote:

This is wrong, and also why you keep misinterpreting what I am saying, and also why we are hitting a roadblock that you don't want cleared.

Let me simply by giving you an ordered list, then perhaps you can stop telling me what I mean and let me tell you what I mean.

1. Milk's positive effects are highly overrated
2. Controversy exists that the Milk industry wants to cover up
3. Various, healthier alternatives exist

As such, people should stop portraying milk as a health food. It's status, at the very most, would be neutral. When I brought up all the controversies, it was to show what was hidden, and the possibilities of detriment.

In addition, I mentioned that milk, by it's nature, is simply fat and water.

If you're going to ignore experimentation on the basis that all research is meaningless, then we can just focus on the fact that milk is fat and water, and thus, not something that should be marketed as "good for you".

Quote:

I already commented on those. Three times. It seems as if though you're more interested in disagreeing than actually giving me information of substance.

@KTC

Here are the sources. I could not manage to find the Finland study again, but I substituted it with better ones. Please keep in mind that all of these studies have small findings and that designating milk as being a health culprit is a major accusation. More research is warranted, despite Mopiece's inference that unless we find 100% causation right off the bat, we can throw out all possibility of it.

All I am trying to illustrate is that the little bits and evidence cast the "healthy" status of milk into light, not that people should quit drinking milk out of paranoia. Just a disclaimer.

None of these studies offer 100% proof, and all of these studies have their individual flaws, but I find it absurd that I am being asked for 100% proof when I'm not trying to prove anything. If I did find a 100% correlation, I would be asking for a milk ban (which I am not).

Amounts of estrogens/peptides and their absorption:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19 ... med_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=4

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19 ... ed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=13

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19 ... ed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=15

Early sexual maturity:
http://www.health101.org/art_Milk_and_Girls.htm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19 ... med_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=2

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16 ... ed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=16

Consumed estrogens leading to reproductive cancers:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16125328

Possible correlations between milk and reproductive effects in human males:
http://www.eps1.comlink.ne.jp/~mayus/eng/male.pdf

In mice:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19 ... ed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=12

i have never heard of milk in a bag XD

we get our milk in cartons or occassionally jugs if the store doesn't have cartons. but i don't think that i have ever in my life hard of milk in a bag XD

^is ignoring the debate going on since she doesn't want to get in the middle of it. tei likes milk (which she buys in a carton XD), so be it.

Wow I had never heard of milk in bags either.

I normally buy my milk in the 1/2 gallon cartons. As for hormones, etc.- I buy organic milk from grass fed cattle which is free of hormones and antibotics.

Quote:

My store doesn't even sell milk in cartons. Only jugs. And no milk in bags, lol.

I personally have always wanted to have milk delivered in glass bottles by a milkman... Don't ask why, I just think it seems neat.

*Is also ignoring the debate.

Quote:

Incorrect.

Quote:

All you said was you can get the health benefits elsewhere, which is true of nearly everything...including your precious soy milk.