Posted on 06/01/2005 5:15:57 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
I didn't develop intolerance until my late 40s (of milk, that is). Acidophilis doesn't help; I think even makes it worse for me, but the lactase tablets most certainly do. There are actually web sites that help people deal with acidophilis intolerance.
Since the article made exactly the same point you made, I don't see how it can be "pure and unadulterated BS" -- unless you're calling your own statement "pure and unadulterated BS" too.
People would do well to apply this concept to the little stuff too. Take sunglasses, for instance. When the sun is so bright that it's making you squint uncomfortably, all those millennia of evolution are trying to tell you to get out of the sun. So what do people do? Put on sunglasses, of course, and continue to hang out in excessively strong sunlight, that gives them sunburn, skin cancer, and sometimes heatstroke. I have one pair of sunglasses, and it lives in the glove compartment of my car, to be worn only when safety requires it. Other than that, if the sunlight is uncomfortably strong, I relocate myself.
Some of my kitties didn't get that memo :-)
Just curious . . . Did you drink milk regularly, and then become lactose intolerant? Or was it something you drank only occasionally? I've often wondered if the cultural habit of ceasing milk drinking after adolescence contributes to the development of lactose intolerance, or if it's really totally genetic.
I've been a lacto-ovo vegetarian since I was 14 (that's 30 years now), and I would be utterly miserable if I couldn't have milk. I probably have about a quart a day, between chocolate milk and lots of milk that I put in my tea. Plus ice cream and other yummy milky things.
"Since the article made exactly the same point you made, I don't see how it can be "pure and unadulterated BS" -- unless you're calling your own statement "pure and unadulterated BS" too."
I guess you had better point out the error of my ways? I reread the article again, twice, and found nothing to substanciate your claim?
I know the pasteurization process is only bringing milk to a boil, so you wouldn't think that would make a difference. But it does with me.
I had no problem drinking all the fresh milk I could hold when I spent a year on my grandparents dairy farm. It's only after the milk is processed that my body has a problem with it.
So where would I fit in on their darwinist scale of things if I can tolerate milk before it's pasteurized but not be able to tolerate if after the process?
I have tasted the "alcohol milk", can't recall what it is called. I must be an acquired taste - my stomach rebelled for a couple of days after a drink of about two teaspoons. I know that in Tibet, Yak's milk is enjoyed. I have neveer tried it but based on the smell of the Yak and my memories of the mare's milk, I will absolutly pass any offers. We hope to be able to visit Tibet next year.
That was most likely an allergy problem. Most mammalian milks have 3-4% lactose and about 2-4% fat.
Well, I'm, Irish, Polish, German, Austria and Hungarian. This thread made me hungry, so now I'm eating ice cream.
"On the other hand, if you have a Germanic tribe where Johann's family can drink milk but Wilhelm's family can't, that could be the difference between living and dying during a tough year growing crops."
Exactly. Cows would be like a living, walking market. Cows can eat grass and other cellouse grasses that we cannot so, can horses but they are only 25% as efficient as cows at converting cellouse to energy. A person with cows and lactose tolerance could pass through miles of territory that contain no food for humans. Those who could not tolerate lactose, died or, killed their cows for food and then died just a little later.
Archaeologists can date droughts/famines on the steppes by the ratio of cow to horse skeletons. In really severe times, the horses die but the cows survive because of the cellouse to energy ratio between cows and horses.
Better you than me!
I have American Indian ancestry, but also European ancestry like a lot of people in the world. I evidently inherited the Asian connection since I am lactose intolerant (I still drink a little milk and pay for it a lot). This is just simply inherited stuff from actually near relatives (in the line of great grandparents), so making it a far distant evolution thing is sort of off base. Of course, we inherit genetic stuff from our relatives all the way back to Adam. I don't see Darwin in here at all.
I've been the same plus poultry meat and fish for about 10 years.
It is true that my lactose intolerance started a couple years after I stopped drinking chocolate milk everyday. However, my uncle's L.I. started at about the same age, and I'm inclined to believe it is the sort of thing that is wired in genetically (like what age you get gray hair, to a large degree, accelerated by exposure to Clintons and other frustrating factors in the environment).
"So where would I fit in on their darwinist scale of things if I can tolerate milk before it's pasteurized but not be able to tolerate if after the process?"
I was raised on a dairy and I have no problem with milk but have a similar situation with cheese. I cannot eat uncooked cheese. I think in your situation pasteurization is killing some bacteria that you find helpful and in mine, killing those I find harmful.
See my post #32.
Dangerous move :-) I have no intention of ever giving up my one or two daily glasses of chocolate milk. I've had the chocolate milk habit since I was two years old, and am in perfect health. And the more I read about new research in nutrition and health, the more I'm convinced there's a connection.
Shows what you know. You have no idea of science. [sarcasm off ]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.