Hi Jean-Louis:
>Alan:
>
> > Milk coagulates in a calfs stomach because it is exposed to the enzyme
> > rennin (which neither adult cows or adult humans produce). Rennin used
> > to be extracted from calves stomachs to make cheese. It is an entirely
> > different coagulation than the coagulation caused by hydrochloric
> > acid.
>
>JL:
> Whatever, coagulation--and longer retaining in the stomach as a
> result--is not bad per se.
>
Fruit and veggie spends very little time in comparison. Digestion
involves relatively heavy energy expenditure and it is thus fruitless
(no pun intended) to drink or eat anything which overloads the
digestive system. Excretion also involves energy and bad foods may
rob the body of too much energy digesting that little or none
remains for proper excretion. Most people who switch from cooked
to raw foods notice this difference fairly quickly.
> > Pepsin is secreted into the stomach in order to break down protein
> > into aminos. Trypsin is secreted into the small intestine to aid
> > the absorption of aminos. I see no connection with calcium bonded to
> > casein.
>
> Calcium is bonded to CPP (a component released by casein
> digestion). The bond Ca-CPP is weak enough, so that calcium can be
> absorbed (if my understanding is correct).
>
Nevertheless, the production of calcium paracaseinate is dependent
on the production of sufficient rennin. Cheesemakers have (had) to
extract the rennin from the stomachs of CALVES (not cows or any other
adult mammal). So where is your argument? Are you suggesting that most
people produce more rennin than was originally thought/measured? If so,
I have seen no papers supporting such a theory as yet. The same goes
for the enzyme lactase as well.
> > I suspect this research was test-tube research for the
> > dairy industry. And as to rats...they can not be compared with
> > humans at all.
>
> -if you reject all scientific evidence that is contrary to your
> opinions because you "suspect" that it was funded by the "dairy
> industry" and that researchers have distorted the results, I am not in
> a very fair position...
>
I am extremely suspicious when researchers overstep known facts to
produce results which contrast with many other papers (especially
those papers which have been confirmed by independent research
elsewhere). Even if the tests were done on one or two people, it
could well be that they purposely chose people who still produce
some rennin and lactase. There are even people who one otherwise
might consider serious who argue that their (domestic) cat loves
milk..i.e. maybe even more than unnatural tinned and cooked food.
In fact there are indeed a few cats who can take it (or appear
to take it) but any good cat book will certainly advise against
the use of milk (as most cats get diarrhoea from it). And hedgehogs,
for example, which certainly eat plenty of animal protein, will
drink it willingly and die from it within a very few days.
> -I agree that what is true for rats is not necessarily true for
> humans, but you must admit that your adamant statement "no adult ANIMAL
> can use the calcium in milk because of the lack of rennin" is
> false--since rats constitute a counterexample. If milk calcium was not
> absorbable by humans, then another explanation is needed.
>
My statement was that no adult (wild) animal needs milk or uses
it as a calcium source.
> -If you think the research on the CPP-Ca bond is flawed, could you
> supply a few references to articles that reach a different conclusion?
>
> > I fail to see how these ratios were calculated?? Since when is, as
> > in Colby, for example, 685 Ca and 457 P a ratio of 1.5???
>
> "Maple V Release 4" says that 685/457 equals
>
> 1.4989059080962800875273522975929978118161925601750547045951859956236323851
> 20350109409190371991247264770240700218818380743982494529540481400437636
> 76148796...
> (and then the decimals are repeated: 498905...)
>
> that's approximately 1.5--up to an error of 0.07%.
>
Such a method of calculating a "ratio" is both misleading and tells me
nothing.
> > In addition, the magnesium figures should also be added because this
> > element also plays a role in calcium absorption.
>
> I am aware that dairy is very poor in magnesium:
>
> Ca P Ca/P Mg Ca/Mg
> (mg/100 g) (mg/100 g) (mg/100 g)
> Blue 528 387 1.4 23 23.0
> Brie 184 188 1.0 20 9.2
> Camembert 388 347 1.1 20 19.4
> Cheddar 721 512 1.4 28 25.5
> Colby 685 457 1.5 26 26.3
> Gruyere 1011 605 1.7 36 28.1
>
> human milk 32 14 2.3 3.4 9.4 (for comparison)
>
> In another post, I said that few vegetables had favorable Ca/P and
> Ca/Mg ratios, but that only _global_ ratios (in the entire diet) are
> relevant. However the Ca/Mg ratio for dairy being typically 10 times
> higher than for vegetables, and the SAD being poor in magnesium, this
> constitues a very good reason why SADers can't use the calcium from
> dairy very efficiently.
>
Now you are getting closer to the problem.
> On the other hand, for someone getting adequate amounts of magnesium
> from other sources, I don't see any reason why (s)he couldn't use
> calcium from cheese. By the way, the ratio Ca/Mg for cocoa is 1:4. Is
> that why people drink milk with chocolate? ;-)
>
My argument is that the consumption of milk takes up much too much
digestive energy for little or no reward (in fact many people actually
suffer noticeably from the consumption of milk and are called
misleading names, as if they are some sort of rare breed, like
"lactose intolerant" (because Nature naturally stopped their production
of lactase after weaning off). Secondly, and most importantly,
people who are suffering or in danger of suffering from
osteoporosis are being told to drink milk (or more milk) to
alleviate the problem. My argument is that actually relying on
milk as a major calcium source will promote osteoporosis rather
than prevent it.
And for those who claim that their is no correlation between the
fact that osteoporosis is extremely rare in places where little
or no milk is consumed (rural China and much of Africa, for example)
and the fact that osteoporosis is rampant in countries such as the
U.S. where much milk is consumed, I ask: If the bones of these
people are (obviously) getting enough calcium, there where are
they getting ENOUGH calcium if they drink little or no milk?
Best regards,
Alan
|
