I didn't take much stock in the opening of this guy's account of his experience—that of dropping 33 pounds in six weeks—when I read it the first time.
I really shouldn’t tell you this. My wife wasn’t sure about it, my friends just laugh, but I’d like to let you in on the secret anyway. It is risky telling so many people, because if it doesn’t work, you’ll never let me forget it. But, being a notorious risk-taker plus an eternal optimist, I still feel like letting you in on it. I know it will work. I’m not afraid. The worst part is that even when it works, some people will still think I’m crazy. Oh well, I’m used to that by now.
That ought resonate a bit with Paleo peeps I should think. I only didn't take stock because, what's new? Unless one is willing to just sit by and get spoon fed information, then one is surely to be going against established, conventional dogma (I've dropped the "wisdom" schtick), and what's left? In the last couple of weeks I've been enamored of seeing the reaction to what all I'm on about with my milk intervention. On the one hand, 400+ new subscribers to the newsletter and on the other hand, the trolls. Those interested are magnitudes more in numbers, so let's take a very deep look at the logic underlying all of this from my own perspective. What only matters to me is whether it makes fundamental sense or not, from what I generally think of as: A Human Animal Perspective.
- Everyone knows we ought to avoid dairy in general and milk in particular. It's not Paleo—and for the low carb folks, has too many carbs.
- No other mammal drinks the milk of another mammal and doesn't drink milk at all beyond weaning.
- Milk has "stuff" in it that may do "bad shit" to you.
It's Not Paleo
Neither are any number of things paleos eat. Coconut oil? Ghee? Were paleos refining and processing coconut oil, how about ghee and olives into oil? And how come cheese all over the place is, well, "we're not really talking about it," but milk is just too far: Richard, you've gone too far! Indeed. Paleos in general seem to have little trepidation about dairy products reduced and refined to fat & protein, i.e., those where lactose has largely been fermented out. It's really those damned low-carbers eh?
...Whole milk, very roughly, is about 50% fat, 30% carbohydrate, and 20% protein.
Has anyone ever stopped to consider what might be a reasonable model upon which to generally base a lifelong diet, specifically BECAUSE of the rough macronutrient composition of milk? From what I see beyond the complete avoidance of dairy on Paleo grounds (fine) seems no reason to avoid the substrate—milk—if "you do dairy." Let's just be honest: it's the irrational fear over any amount of sugar in your diet, even though it's obviously essential to infant mammals. Right? That's you're argument? "I'm an adult, adults can't do sugar like witto teeny babies can and must." Right, "adult?"
No Other Mammal Drinks the Milk of Another Mammal, and Not At All Beyond Weaning
In the first phrase, that's simply dumb. Unless we're going full cannibal, we have to eat other animals and I find the distinction between the obvious fact that their muscle, fat, bone (broths), marrow, brain tissue, and organs are oh-so healthy...but their milk is poison....to be worse than ignorant on more levels of plain honest inquiry than I could count. It's just dismissible dogma, at base, that causes people—even Paleos—to spout such udder nonsense. Because when you get that far, the next question to ask is: what if their milk is the most nutritionally sound at large? It seems like an immanently reasonable question to me, a question so important that all the hand waving over it not being Paleo leaves me less than satisfied.
Rapid evolution has been documented to have taken place over the last 10,000 years—including Devil's Sperm like lactose tolerance (The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution). This is often put forth as a criticism of Paleo when in fact, it's the very best argument for Paleo. Unfortunately, a moron like Marlene Zuk would fail to get the memo, or think too much before the imminent publication of her book in a few days....that which will doubtlessly prove to be a stupid screed on many levels of conventional dogma spouting ignorance: Paleofantasy: What Evolution Really Tells Us about Sex, Diet, and How We Live. (Not even knowing about the book, I did already take on some of the stupid articles by her and a friend, prefiguring it: here and here.)
Very slow evolution over the vast 2 million year span of the Paleolithic, contrasted with rapid evolution over the 10,000 year span of the Neolithic, if indeed how it happened, is a solid, very solid case to trend Paleo in your dietary preferences.
Why? Because even though you are and always will be a sacrificial animal from the point of view of evolution logic, you possess an unintended evolutionary accident: a real mind, capable of understanding evolution and its mindless mathematical, amoral, reproductive logic. You can take a lookiesee: hey, evolution is happening rapidly...must be a bunch of bad shit causing that. Not earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, untold environmental upheaval, continental drift and climate change that would make a belching factory blush—but bad shit...like crap food cheaper and cheaper crowding out good shit. Grains are cheap. Grains. They are. From top to bottom and wall to wall they are the very cheapest staple food and evolution is responding in kind. "Follow the money." Let's just get that straight.
You're welcome to be part of evolution's amoral, no concern for any individual nefarious scheme that counts as the biggest double-edge sword in the history of humanity (the good edge) and civilization (the double edge). I'll lean Paleoish, thanks very much. My Paleoishness is not at all based—anymore, or, not that it ever really was—on what humans exactly ate in the Paleo. Nor is it based, by consequence, on what they should not eat now. Not is a negation, and as such, not much help in a quest for positives. It's what's logical to eat from a Paleo evolutionary framework, not deconstructed into constituant parts, and by God, that includes dairy and the most non-deconstructed, non processed of all: milk (ironic, eh?). And if one includes it at all, why not a a lot and see what happens, eh?
Bottom line is that your one and only life here and now is very important to you.
Chances are, you'll do better by taking a dietary step back and let evolution take its course without your sacrificial participation, since you have something nobody in the Paleo possessed generally, in terms of human biology and its evolution: scientific knowledge; plus the knowledge of important anecdote, worldwide, right here and everywhere, thanks to Al Gore. And so there's just another scientific bullshit for you: anecdote. It's the idea that because it's not scientifically precise (which is mostly a function of very small studies), that it's worthless and of no value. Udder bullshit. Anecdote is not anathema to scientific research. It is its very basis. It absolutely has to be controlled for, and very tightly—which goes to the very discipline of the thing in the fist place. It can never, ever be dismissed.
...Weaning is equally a stupid argument. Animals don't wean because milk suddenly becomes poison. Mammals wean because their moms have better things to do—like go bear offspring gain and birth another one; rinse, wash, repeat. Is 2 two short sentences enough on that stupid issue, or too much?
Milk Has Bad Stuff
Yea, I know, it's insulinogenic. I'll just point out that Type I diabetics aren't typically only very lean because of a a lack of ability to store fat. Insulin matters.
And casein protein promotes cancer cell growth while whey seems to do the opposite. Ever stop to think that isolation and concentration might be a problem, in itself? Maybe both ways?
And allergies. Being lifelong sensitive to various pollens—especially grass pollen (scratch tests, so I know)—I find the notion a bit perplexing. See, there happens to be grass everywhere, including my own backyard. Does that mean isolation for me, because I'm allergic? It does mean I don't roll around in it shirtless. Seriously, when I hear "I'm allergic," I laugh. What does that mean? Anaphylactic shock leading to cardiac arrest, or you get a little itchy bump? Both fall under the category. ...And don't even get me started about how people—particularly women (you know I'm right)—use "oh, I'm allergic," as euphemism for "I think your dish looks like crap and don't even insist I take 'just a taste.'"
Moving on, I took at this milk thing as I take all things Real Food and Paleoish (from a human evolutionary standpoint). Get this into heads: Paleo is not about what cavemen ate, how they moved, slept, fucked, raised their children...or did without Breaking Bad on cable. It's about what we evolved to eat, beginning with the basics and moving out from there. Dairy in all its forms, as a mammalian first essential beverage, is likely the very first logical choice.
Now that it's under question, I'll turn from criticizing the case against it in this part, to making the case for it in PART II, tomorrow. Part of this is my speculation that this and other forms of very high nutrition, raise things to think about in terms of the drug industry from the perspective of someone who sees the drug industry as a nice little baby, but in some very dirty filthy bathwater.
Update: I neglected to address the A1 vs. A2 issue with milk. Here's a study.
This review outlines a hypothesis that A1 one of the common variants of beta-casein, a major protein in cows milk could facilitate the immunological processes that lead to type I diabetes (DM-I). It was subsequently suggested that A1 beta-casein may also be a risk factor for coronary heart disease (CHD), based on between-country correlations of CHD mortality with estimated national consumption of A1 beta-casein in a selected number of developed countries. A company, A2 Corporation was set up in New Zealand in the late 1990s to test cows and market milk in several countries with only the A2 variant of beta-casein, which appeared not to have the disadvantages of A1 beta-casein. The second part of this review is a critique of the A1/A2 hypothesis. For both DM-I and CHD, the between-country correlation method is shown to be unreliable and negated by recalculation with more countries and by prospective studies in individuals. The animal experiments with diabetes-prone rodents that supported the hypothesis about diabetes were not confirmed by larger, better standardised multicentre experiments. The single animal experiment supporting an A1 beta-casein and CHD link was small, short, in an unsuitable animal model and had other design weaknesses. The A1/A2 milk hypothesis was ingenious. If the scientific evidence had worked out it would have required huge adjustments in the world's dairy industries. This review concludes, however, that there is no convincing or even probable evidence that the A1 beta-casein of cow milk has any adverse effect in humans. This review has been independent of examination of evidence related to A1 and A2 milk by the Australian and New Zealand food standard and food safety authorities, which have not published the evidence they have examined and the analysis of it. They stated in 2003 that no relationship has been established between A1 or A2 milk and diabetes, CHD or other diseases.
Now here's Mat "The Kraken" Lalonde, PhD, on someone's Facebook thread a while back.
The whole A2 versus A1 milk issue was a fabrication by New Zealand farmers who wanted to sell more milk fro their A2 producing cows. Anyone with basic chemistry and biochemistry knowledge can cut through the arguments that were provided by the A2 side. The original studies were in vitro and did not use the full spectrum of enzymes that human beings possess for digestion. Dipeptidyl Peptidase IV and Prolyl Endopeptidase have the ability to shred BCM7 to pieces. For more information see: (a) Teschemaker, H.; Umbach, M.; Hamel, U.; Praetorius, K.; Ahert-Hilder, G.; Brantl, V.; Lottspeich, F.; Henschen, A. J. No Evidence for the Presence of b-Casomorphins in Human Plasma After Ingestion of Cow’s Milk or Milk Products. Dairy Res. 1986, 53, 135–138. (b) Hill, J. P.; Crawford, R. A.; Boland, M. J. Milk and Consumer Health: A Review of the Evidence for a Relationship Between the Consumption of Beta Casein A1 with Heart Disease and Insulin Dependent Diabetes Mellitus. Proc. NZ Soc. Animal Production 2002, 62, 111–114. (c) Truswell, A. S. The A2 Milk Case: A Critical Review. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2005, 59, 623–631. (d) Chin-Dusting, J.; Shennan, J.; Jones, E.; Williams, C.; Kingwell, B.; Dart, A. Effect of Dietary Supplementation with b-Casein A1 or A2 on Markers of Disease Development in Individuals at High Risk of Cardiovascular Disease. British Journal of Nutrition. 2006, 95, 136–144
The effects of BMC7 are only manifested when the molecule is injected into human beings or lab animals. They do not manifest when the molecule is ingested. BMC7 is not detected in the guts of human beings when A1 milk is ingested. That is because of what I've mentioned earlier. The in vitro tests originally used to detect and isolate BMC7 did not have the full spectrum of human digestive enzymes. Human beings are fully capable of digesting BMC7. It is true that BMC7 is problematic when isolated from incomplete in vitro digestion and injected into human beings. However, there are no detrimental effects noted when A1 milk or BMC7 is ingested because human beings digest BMC7. Now if your view is that ilk is unhealthy, fine. Just don't use BMC7 to justify your position. Milk is calorically dense and not very satiating (liquids do not cause a whole lot of stomach distension), as such, it is easily over consumed. This can lead to weight gain excess calcium and other problems. Add lactose and casein intolerance to the mix and you have plenty of legitimate reasons to avoid dairy. BMC7 is not one of them, however.
There's more at the thread from Mat, if you want more info.