What's the best milk? Whole? Skim? Reduced fat?
I have digestive issues (IBS like but, apparently, not IBS nor coeliac) and it's weird.
Full fat milk of any brand sets me off something chronic, skim milk is the only one I can have and only from a particular brand.
I stopped drinking milk because I hear it's better for your skin (and overall health...apparently) but my tum tum is playing up massively without it.
Fuck it.
>drinking milk
When will this meme die?
![paleo[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/FTIvoDy.jpg "paleo[1].jpg")
>neolithic foods
>making it
pick 1
![ttt_WOPR[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/jS6Xc2w.png "ttt_WOPR[1].png")
>Best milk
>Whole? Skim? Reduced fat?
I drink 2 percentage points.
>>34902290
Whole
>>34902339
>>34902857
>>34902936
6000 years ago, adults never had access to milk, and so lost the ability to produce lactase. Adult lactose tolerance was a rare mutation.
Then milk-bearing animals were domesticated. Societies that had domesticated these animals saw the lactose tolerant mutation become so completely dominant that the original state is considered a medical irregularity.
Milk makes you so much stronger, healthier and more reproductively fit that the lactose tolerant completely wiped out the lactose intolerant in these societies in less than 6000 years.
>Literally believing Milk is bad for you
On behalf of evolutionary biology, fuck you.
>>34902290
Anything less than whole and you're a colossal faggot.
Drinking milk from another species, confirmed not making it
>>34902290
Whole milk as you remove all lipophile vitamins with the fat. If you drink skimmed milk you might as well drink water.
>>34902290
Goat milk
>>34902290
The purpose of cow’s milk is to turn a 65-pound calf into a 700-pound cow as rapidly as possible. Cow’s milk IS baby calf growth fluid. No matter what you do to it, that is what the stuff is.
>>34903017
Lactose tolerance just means you're able to digest lactose without digestive upset. It has nothing to do with whether the rest of the milk is healthy or not.
>>34903112
>Milk is unhealthy but we evolved specifically to drink it
My grandpa used to drink it straight after milking the animal.
>Mfw I'm a little pussy city boy afraid of insects and big animals.
A-at least I will grow braver as I lift bigger . I hope
Skim if you're cutting
skim if you're bulking
Don't listen to fatties who disagree
>>34902290
>/skim milk/
Is milk good for us or not? What does science say?
>why are people told to stop drinking milk to get rid of acne?
>>34903147
We didn't evolve to drink cow's milk, certain groups of people evolved the ability to digest lactose past infancy.
>>34902290
Blue whale
chocolate milk
>>34903475
>We didn't evolve to eat grains, certain groups of people evolved the ability to break down starch into glucose more than other primates
paleo logic everyone
>>34905738
I'm not even paleo. What are you arguing?
i like this milk
i'm T1D so i like low carb versions of things since it means less insulin i have to bolus, plus this gives me 25g of protons for every 18oz glass i drink. it also tastes like the normal milk i've drank since i was really young
>>34905795
>i like low carb versions of tthings since it means less insulin i have to bolus
>drinks 25 grams of insulin-spiking whey protein
>>34905820
no i'm T1D
my insulin doesn't spike unless i bolus insulin. my immune system literally destroyed my pancreas's ability to produce insulin naturally
>>34905820
> he thinks type 1 diabetics produce insulin.
>>34905820
>WAT ARE BETA ISLET CELLS
>>34905857
>WAT ARE BETA
you
>>34902290
The milk of gainz from the land of the best milk, New Zealand
>>34905884
Stats for the milk
http://www.meadowfresh.co.nz/our-products/milk/protein-boost-milk/
>>34905774
What are you arguing? That we evolved to digest lactose and not milk?
>>34905903
i evolved to fuck you're mom
>>34905795
What's the point of this? You need some insulin to stimulate protein synthesis. Otherwise it's just deaminated and the carbon skeleton is used for energy.
>>34905929
i don't just drink it alone. i drink it with dinner, which has carbs from rice/bread/pasta/etc. so i have to bolus insulin for those anyway. the milk just has extra protein and less sugar. plus i have a steady flow of insulin running through me at all times from my basal insulin
i'm not a paleo/keto freak running on 10-20g of carbs a day, i just don't take in more when i don't have to
>>34903112
But the lactose intolerants wouldn't drink it after the first few times.
>>34905903
>That we evolved to digest lactose and not milk?
Cow's milk and lactose are two separate things. Some humans evolved lactase persistance that lets them continue to digest lactose after weaning. To extend that to mean that everything about milk is fine is illogical.
>>34906075
Where else would humans find lactose that necessitates this adaptation? What else is there in milk that you're claiming we did not coevolve for?
>>34906179
>Where else would humans find lactose that necessitates this adaptation?
Not sure what you're trying to say. Lactase exists to digest lactose, which is your food during infancy. Lactase persistance can allow you to continue drinking milk past infancy, including the milk of other species, such as cow's milk. Some people have evolved this trait, which has specifically the ability to digest lactose, and has nothing to do with cow's milk as a whole.
>What else is there in milk that you're claiming we did not coevolve for?
For starters, cow hormones and saturated fats.
Firstly drinking milk anywhere past adolescence is lamentable.
But if you absolutely must consume dairy from mental issues, then drink from your own species. Anything beyond that is purely retarded.
why drink milk when there's fucking cheese?
>>34906179
You shouldn't really be considering it a necessary adaption. Most mutations aren't (although a human born with no ability to digest lactose is pretty much fucked from the start).
And in any case humans have pretty much always had the ability to digest lactose, at least as children. What changed was a mutation that caused the lactase production to not switch off as the person ages - a mutation that seems to have occurred independently in the species a number of times, including in places where it has no real selective advantage.
>>34902290
this a troll?
>>34906204
>Not sure what you're trying to say.
You're claiming we did not evolve to drink milk, we evolved to handle lactose.
>For starters, cow hormones and saturated fats.
Where's the evidence that these things adversely affect Darwinian fitness?
>>34906204
Kek
>>34906218
>You shouldn't really be considering it a necessary adaption.
Stopped reading there. You're truly ignorant of the role milk played in the Neolithic transition.
>>34906237
>You're claiming we did not evolve to drink milk, we evolved to handle lactose.
Right, wouldn't you agree with that? That's what lactase persistence is. Retaining production of the lactase enzyme, allowing digestion of lactose after weaning.
>Where's the evidence that these things adversely affect Darwinian fitness?
It doesn't need to. That would be a different argument.
>>34906286
>Right, wouldn't you agree with that? That's what lactase persistence is. Retaining production of the lactase enzyme, allowing digestion of lactose after weaning.
And that along with a few other minor genetic variants was all that was needed to support milk drinking. There isn't any evidence to suggest otherwise.
>It doesn't need to. That would be a different argument.
You really don't know how evolution works, do you?
>>34906335
>And that along with a few other minor genetic variants was all that was needed to support milk drinking. There isn't any evidence to suggest otherwise.
Milk drinking was already a thing, you drank your species' milk as a baby. You definitely evolved to do that much. The development of lactase and lactase persistence, and the practice of drinking cow's milk, goat's milk, etc are two separate things that you can't say we evolved for (in the sense that it causes no problems for us and is an intended food source) simply because you have the ability to do it. It's like saying we evolved to drink soda because we can digest sucrose/fructose.
>>34902290
2% my man.
>>34902290
Yes, because there is such a big difference between 1,2 or 3% fat content.
>>34906371
>in the sense that it causes no problems for us and is an intended food source
I don't think there are any genes which care about your longevity fantasies. Aging is not a disease.
>It's like saying we evolved to drink soda because we can digest sucrose/fructose.
That comparison is total garbage. Is soda drinking evolutionarily advantageous? Has it altered the way humans metabolize simple sugars?
>>34903048
>tfw you will never have a huge tittied gf on domperidone to milk every morning.
>>34906456
>I don't think there are any genes which care about your longevity fantasies.
If the thing in question doesn't necessarily have to be healthy for us, it's a moot point saying we evolved to do it. You could say we evolved to do practically everything that doesn't immediately kill us or keep us from reproducing then. Humans developed systems for growing, harvesting, and smoking tobacco, and tobacco-smokers still have children. We must have evolved to do it.
>That comparison is total garbage. Is soda drinking evolutionarily advantageous?
Soda is most common in the richest countries in the world, so you could indirectly say it is. Countries that drink soda are successful. It doesn't adversely affect Darwinian fitness like you asked about milk earlier, soda drinkers still have children.
>Has it altered the way humans metabolize simple sugars?
Has lactase persistence? Digesting lactose was already a thing, lactase persistence just extended the amount of time our bodies produce that enzyme. You also have sucrase, the sucrose-digesting enzyme, so did you evolve to drink coke?
>>34906540
>If the thing in question doesn't necessarily have to be healthy for us, it's a moot point saying we evolved to do it. You could say we evolved to do practically everything that doesn't immediately kill us or keep us from reproducing then. Humans developed systems for growing, harvesting, and smoking tobacco, and tobacco-smokers still have children. We must have evolved to do it.
Traits that are advantageous are conserved. Why are you denying evolution?
>Soda is most common in the richest countries in the world, so you could indirectly say it is. Countries that drink soda are successful.
What kind of shitty correlational non-sequitur is this? Soda is not at all responsible for the wealth of those countries.
>Has lactase persistence? Digesting lactose was already a thing, lactase persistence just extended the amount of time our bodies produce that enzyme. You also have sucrase, the sucrose-digesting enzyme, so did you evolve to drink coke?
Lactase persistence came about from positive selection. As did sucrase. Soda had nothing to do with it.
>>34906663
>Traits that are advantageous are conserved. Why are you denying evolution?
Not every trait that's conserved is advantageous. Some people have genetic predispositions to getting cancer but it's not a strong selection pressure because it still happens later in life. There's no conscious force that chooses what traits are best for a species, traits can pass on whether they're advantageous or not. As long as it's not so disadvantageous that it doesn't allow reproduction, it basically doesn't matter.
>What kind of shitty correlational non-sequitur is this? Soda is not at all responsible for the wealth of those countries.
Right, but most countries that drink a lot of soda are large, wealthy, and successful, so soda drinkers aren't at an evolutionary disadvantage. It doesn't stop them from being able to reproduce.
In poorer parts of the world, people also rely on sugar and oil to get the calories they need to live. The woman in this picture wouldn't be able to raise two children without the calories sugar offers. In this case, sucrose offers a reproductive advantage. Would we say she evolved to eat table sugar? Or just say that she has the ability to digest sucrose, which allows her to eatt table sugar for energy?
>>34906763
>Not every trait that's conserved is advantageous.
No shit. But if you knew anything about the evolutionary biology and history of lactase persistence, you would know it IS advantageous and that there is evidence for positive selection.
>Some people have genetic predispositions to getting cancer but it's not a strong selection pressure because it still happens later in life.
Many of these are actually subtle antagonistic pleiotropy.
>As long as it's not so disadvantageous that it doesn't allow reproduction, it basically doesn't matter.
The difference between positive, neutral, and deleterious mutations definitely does matter. Stable states and fixation of advantageous traits that improve fitness drive evolution. Have you ever attended a school?
>Right, but most countries that drink a lot of soda are large, wealthy, and successful, so soda drinkers aren't at an evolutionary disadvantage. It doesn't stop them from being able to reproduce.
I don't study refined sugar, and I don't know how it's related to our conversation, but I bet the people who do with regards to immune function, early neurological development, etc might be keen to disagree with you.
>In poorer parts of the world, people also rely on sugar and oil to get the calories they need to live. The woman in this picture wouldn't be able to raise two children without the calories sugar offers. In this case, sucrose offers a reproductive advantage. Would we say she evolved to eat table sugar?
Obviously if this is the only diet available in her environment it is something rather than nothing. Better diets would lead to greater reproductive potential and fitness of both her and her offspring. If some more nutritious food were to be available (for example), but that happened to be tainted with a toxic alkaloid, mutations that allow for development of efficient xenobiotic mechanisms to handle it would be evolution.
