> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paleolithic Eating Support List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Carrie Coineandubh
> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 7:34 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Cooking Fats - was Re: Christmas Pudding
> 
> 
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Paleolithic Eating Support List=20
> >> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of ginny wilken
> >> Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 9:09 PM
> >> To: [log in to unmask]
> >> Subject: Re: Cooking Fats - was Re: Christmas Pudding
> 
> > Then there are the puzzles, such as the Masai of Africa who
> have not
> > developed lactose tolerance yet consume large amounts of
> cow's milk as
> > a staple food "without apparent symptoms" of lactose intolerance.
> > [Jackson = RT, Latham MC. Lactose malabsorption among Masai 
> children
> > of East Africa. Am = J
> > Clin Nutr. 1979 Apr;32(4):779-82.
> 
> *** This study did not address what seems to be to be the
> most obvious 
> difference between "lactose-intolerant" Maasai and 
> "lactose-intolerant" 
> Americans--the fact that Americans drink cooked milk and 
> Maasai drink raw 
> milk.

Actually, the purpose of the study wasn't to compare lactose-intolerant
Masai with lactose-intolerant Americans. It was investigating whether "small
or modest quantities of milk can be tolerated and can be nutritionally
useful to [lactose intolerant] groups" in less developed countries (LDC's).

This study did cite another study which found that while 72% of a group of
Boston, U.S. children (both white and black) were found by the Lactose
Tolerance Test to be "lactose malabsorbers," none of them displayed or
reported any lactose intolerance symptoms after drinking a glass of milk.
Both study groups, Americans and Masai, showed no lactose intolerance
symptoms when consuming milk, regardless of whether the milk was raw or
pasteurized. The Americans did not drink raw milk, so whether milk was raw
or not made no difference in these two studies and the Masai's lack of
symptoms cannot be attributed to raw milk from this data. What can be
concluded is that the LTT and lactose malabsorption are not good predictors
of lactose intolerance symptoms. The data does suggest that many lactose
malabsorbers can consume milk without displaying any obvious symptoms, but
that does not mean that milk is necessarily healthy for them. Also, the
American group did not drink as much milk as the Masai, so further study
would be necessary to check whether lactose-malabsorbing Americans can
handle larger quantities of milk without symptoms.

Also, it is possible that the study subjects would display symptoms if they
were to avoid all dairy products for several weeks and then drink milk. I
and others have experienced this phenomenon--where the body first must expel
all of the offending substance (lactose, casein, whey, etc.) and be free of
it for a time, and then have that substance be reintroduced before a
reaction will become pronounced. When the body is constantly inundated with
"foreign" (modern or allergenic) proteins or carbs, adding some more of the
offending substance will often not cause a noticeable reaction, though
subtle, chronic symptoms may be present that the consumer of the substance
is not conscious of until those symptoms disappear after a period of
avoidance. I and others have experienced this and it is commonly noted in
the literature on food intolerance and sensitivity. None of the studies took
this into account.

The "puzzle" I was referring to but did not explain fully is that
anthropologists typically have predicted that the level of lactose
malabsorption among pastoral peoples who have consumed dairy foods for many
generations should be quite low. While the rate of 62% among the Masai is
lower than that of the agrarian Bantu people (92% of Bantu children aged 7
to 14 were found to be malabsorbers and 77% developed symptoms after
drinking milk), it is still much higher than expected, because it is still
much higher than that found in other pastoralist peoples who consume dairy
products (such as the Tutsi, whose lactose malabsorption rate was reported
as only 16%). One confounding factor in the studies has been that different
amounts of milk were consumed by the study groups. 

In order to demonstrate a difference in the level of lactose intolerance
symptoms after drinking raw vs. pasteurized milk, both types of milk will
have to be given to the same study group. As far as I know, this sort of
study has not been done yet. The likelihood of this type of study being
performed is low given that it is illegal to sell raw milk in many states
within the U.S. Also, as long as raw milk remains illegal in the U.S. it
will not be a viable addition on a large scale to a Paleo or
traditional/pastoral type diet in this country.