An End to the Milk Controversy?
Over the past couple years; dairy products have been a source of confusion and debate in regards to their contribution to weight loss.
Now the U.S. Department of Agriculture has been forced to stop 2 national dairy advertising campaigns that claim dairy products can cause weight loss.
This is in response to a petition filed by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) charges that the claims that dairy enhances weight loss are not supported by existing research.
The PCRM cited a recent study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition that found that “dairy product consumption either has little or no effect on weight loss or actually increases body weight.” The weight gain was primarily in men who consumed the greatest amount of high-fat dairy products.
The same study found that consumption of low-fat dairy products did not seem to have any effect on weight gain or weight loss.
Many people can attest that the moderate consumption of low-fat dairy products such as yogurt or cottage cheese can be a healthy part of a weight management program
But according to the PCRM, even moderate consumption of any dairy product may not be such a good idea. The PCRM has been collecting evidence that suggests dairy consumption may be related to increased risk for prostate cancer.
It seems the dairy debate may never end.
44 Comments
Add Your Comment
ADVERTISING
New
- FROM DIET BLOG
- The Ravages of Constipation on Your Body
- Movie Review: Bigger, Stronger, Faster
- 13 Big Fat Dieting Myths
- It's the "Exercise Freaks" Causing Healthcare Strain!
- Salad vs. Big Mac: Which Has More Calories?
- FORUM
- What Keeps You Motivated to Lose Weight?
- Starting My Weight Loss Journey
- Weight Loss Plateau Following Gastric Bypass
- Self Hypnosis for Dieting
- I'm Sick of Not Being "tinytasha"
ADVERTISING
Categories
| Body Image Celebrities Diet Pills Diets Exercise |
Fast Food Funny Stuff Success Stories Teens and Kids Tips and Tools |
RSS Feed
Follow @DietBlog on Twitter
Where there is confusion I think it's good to look to nature. Is it natural to drink milk after weaning? Let alone the milk of another species.
Not all arguments are equal. Each should be weighted. Nature is a ton weight argument.
~Mike
ReplyI've read somewhere that as much as 80% of the population may be mildly allergic to dairy products. After I made the switch to rice milk, my complexion really cleared up.
Brian
ReplyI just had an experience where I went to a nutritionist and she told me to eat lots of dairy to lose weight. I didn't like her or trust her. I mean, how can you trust someone who is so obviously sponsored by a particuar industry?
This is is Canada, it will be interesting to see if they will stop distributing the books I got from her.
My trip to the nutritionist, sponsored by the dairy industry
ReplyWe're drinking the wrong milk. Plain and simple.
ReplyI'm really confused about this. It sure seems as though up 'til recently, there were a number of studies that suggested that low and nonfat dairy really did help people lose weight. Were they bad studies? I hate when consensus seems to change like this and somehow I've missed something along the way.
I drink a lot of nonfat milk and probably will continue--I like it and it doesn't seem to have any ill effects. But darn, I thought it was also a "good thing."
Ryan--if you stop back, I'm curious about what you meant about the wrong milk. 'Cause I just drink the regular nonfat stuff (although with no hormones). Should it be organic? From goats? People (yuck)? I really have somehow missed all the anti-milk research.
ReplyI drink cow's milk. However, I drink it raw: full fat, not pasteurized, and not homogenized. Also, the cows need to be fed grass instead of corn or whatever it is they are usually fed.
Replyi drink skim milk all the time, also yogurt and cheese seem to help me loose weight. i have no idea what they are talking about here. incorporating low fat dairy in my diet has helped me loose 20 lbs!
ReplyWhat I don't like is the horrible way we treat cows (and other animals) that we raise for food.
ReplyI think this debate is great, but I think instead of trying to decide definitively if milk is good or bad we should focus more energy on education. It's true that most adults can't digest milk on their own, but many of the enzymes that help us digest food can (or have interchangeable DNA which might let them if they have it). Modern massed produced milk can be full of antibiotics and even pus. The flavor of most milk is lost because of quick pasteurization at high temperatures instead of slower pasteurization at lower temperatures. I think we should be calling for better milk, in moderation, rather than just saying 'milk is bad' in general. We know this won't help the general population because people consume products which are 'bad' for them consistently.
In addition, milk is a great source of protein (and high in sugar). If a person enjoys dairy products they can be a healthy part of a sensible diet.
I'm not sure you can argue it is 'unnatural' for people to drink milk. Humans are not wild and have survived and flourished due to their ability to solve problems and find new answers to problems. Since we drink milk we've obviously found that it can nourish our bodies.
ReplyOur food system is so far out of whack, it's hard to do better - although I'd love to. I was thinking about how the cosmetics industry has been able to turn "cruelty free" into something that many people are happy to pay more for. People would be willing to pay for meat and dairy, too, but once you ramp up to large-scale distribution, it's very hard not to go down the path of creating factories.
Reply"get eggs from a local chicken ranch (which is not a batter farm, but not the best. I grew up on a chicken ranch)
I live in Texas and we get something else from the Chicken Ranch.
ReplyMilk is very healthy for our bodies and health but the impact people have claimed for weight loss was just taken too far. I am glad it is known now.
Reply"Since we drink milk we've obviously found that it can nourish our bodies."
I suppose we can say the same about trans fat and other man made wonders, such as chemicals and hormones. I mean, we "found" trans fat and we "found" chemical that make our food taste good, so clearly those potato chips "nourish our bodies." I'm not attacking you Amanda, just pointing out that because we have found something doesn't mean it's nourishing to our bodies.
ReplyI feel your pain. Back in the day I saw a nutritionist who thought that overwhelming amounts of carbohydrates were the only way to go. Forget about protein and fats. Just eat good healthy carbs (e.g. muffins, white buns etc etc).
ReplyI don't dissagree... however my comment was in reference to foods that humans have found in 'nature'. If you'll note the earlier comment in reference to the 'nature' of consuming (another animal's) milk after weaning, I think perhaps you'll better understand the context of my comment. Obviously everything that we can digest isn't something that we should ingest. That is sort of what I meant with the whole "bad for you" thing. Just because you can inhale cigarette smoke doesn't mean it's good for you. I don't find cows' milk to be a good comparison to trans fat. I understand your point. It is duly noted. However I'd like to make clear that I meant on a more primitive level humans learned to find continued nourishment from the milk of cows and goats. (As opposed to save money and deceive the masses with a disgusting 'food', although you could argue that this, too, is in human nature)
ReplyI don't think milk has something to do with weight loss. I've seen young children who drink milk and plays physical games everday, but still don't change from their form.
ReplyHi Everyone... some interesting comments about whether milk is natural :-)
Ominvore is what we do, not what we are :-) I tried to answer this in a couple of paragraphs but it was getting way to wordy. I'll try to put a post up with the answer on my site if I get time. But in the meantime...
Genetically we are over 98% chimpanzee. That's a big clue right there. 500 generations ago there was no farming. There's another big clue.
Humans spread quickly over the globe and some were forced to eat/drink some really weird stuff. Those that could not adapt died away. The mutants survived, hence the wide diversity in ethic groups. Nature is harsh.
If you're one of the few groups of people that can tolerate milk, then ok. Very few people can. It's a constant stress on the body. There are other issues related to modern farming too.
~Mike
p.s. I mean "mutant" in the nicest possible way. Mutation is a natural and beneficial (to the species) phenomenon.
ReplyHi, Mike!
Please post here when you have your longer answer put up.
Here's a description about the statistic you quote:
Cooking this down, it's not that less than 2% of our genes are different from a chimpanzee. Instead, related genes differ by less than 2%. Frankly, I don't know what this means in terms of behavior, outside of the fact that we're more closely related to chimps than to mice, and it doesn't take a lot of changes to have a huge effect on how the gene is expressed.Biologically, we are omnivores. If we found the teeth of a new species, and they looked like ours - some canines, some molars - we'd conclude that the animal was an omnivore. We have the digestive system and the same approach to food as other omnivores have, like rats. Whenever you walk by a new ethnic restaurant, and you think "Hum! I've never had (insert ethnic identity here) food before! I wonder what it tastes like?", you are having an omnivore thought. When presented with a new and unfamiliar dish, and you take a tiny bite to see what you think, you're exhibiting an omnivore behavior.
It's true that being an omnivore doesn't mean all food is equally digestable. And, I agree wholeheartedly that the agricultural revolution has its downside. But, I don't think that there is an ideal human diet, outside of the general rule of having a large variety of foods.
ReplyLike Ryan, I too prefer raw milk from grass-fed cows because it contains more nutrients. It can be hard to buy in my area, so I opt for organic VAT pasteurized milk (pasteurized at a much lower heat), which is the next best thing to raw. In the 1920's, raw milk was known to nourish and heal people, but today's milk is known to cause allergies, cancer, and heart disease. I know many people will claim it is too risky to drink raw milk (you have to be careful whom you buy your milk from), but I personally feel it is too risky to drink milk with the added hormones.
ReplyHi Quito!
Heck, forget about the post on my website, let's thrash it out here...
I'm happy with your definition... but I think I avoided any potential traps by use of the suitably vague phrase "genetically similar" :-)
I agree that small genetic differences can amount to huge physical and behavioural differences but hey I didn't say we "were" chimps just that genetically we're very close.
What can we get from studying chimps and bonobos? I think most importantly it's obvious that they consume no grains or dairy and they don't cook. That's more or less as far as we need to take it, so I don't think an in-depth argument about genetics or even dietary classification is necessary.
If you want to call humans "omnivores" go right ahead :-) Our stone age ancestors ate exactly the same broad food groups as do modern day chimps. That's the only broad observation I think we need to make.
Chimps incidently, are also adventurous when it comes to new foods -- usually the youngsters doing the experimenting.
When you add to the grain and dairy arguments, a wealth of scientific data which show serious problems with these two food groups... a very obvious and clear picture begins to emerge.
Humans' willingness to eat almost anything is undoubtedly a big part of the reason for our success but there's a big difference between surviving and thriving.
When you really think about it... really think... drinking the milk of another species is perhaps one of the most bizarre human ideas.
Drink milk or die? -- give me the milk. Give me a choice and I'll choose fruits, veg, nuts, seeds and animal foods -- our omnivorous choices :)
Incidently, the study of teeth is useful but only as part of the big picture. There are some species of baboon with HUGE canines that eat only grass! Plus, many would compare our physiology to apes and draw the conclusion that we are indeed primates.
I don't think it matters too much. Just get rid of the grains and dairy as much as possible and eat as much of your diet raw as possible. What else is there? (In terms of food groups)
Your so-called omnivores do not eat grains of dairy either do they?
We have a common ancestor with chimps who are frugivorous. If we became "omnivores", we did it in the last 6 million years :-)
When I say "we" I mean our evolutionary ancestors. The "homo" genus is only around 2.5 million years old -- I think that's right.
And "we" didn't even leave Africa until 60,000 years ago (definately Homo Sapiens by this point) according to The Genome Project.
Actually, I'm not sure how I would classify humans. Neither frugivorous nor omnivorous seems to do it.
I guess if pushed I would have to say we're omnivorous in the sense of stuff that can be eaten from nature directly without preparation... i.e. raw.
Having said ALL that, grains and dairy aren't the worst offenders in modern diets. A diet of mainly whole foods will serve you well as long as you can tolerate grains and dairy. Still, sticking to our natural foods will mean you thrive better in my view.
Grains also become more important for folks with high calorie needs, just because of the shear volume of food you'd have to eat otherwise, and the cost of replacing grain calories with fruits and veg -- still, not ideal. Stay away from them if you possibly can.
By the way -- I read somewhere that we're also 60% banana :-)
Cheers
Reply~Mike.
Bravo Quito and Mike. I thoroughly enjoyed reading your posts! The way people abuse the DNA similarity statistics has always been a pet peeve of mine. People just don't have a very good sense of what a 5% similarity in genetic make-up means.
A book by Matt Ridley that I've been reading states that 33 genes is enough to make every human in this peopulation unique. Now, 5% of a genome is thousands upon thousands of genes. That's a big big difference, and its commen sense when you look at a chimp and a human.
Thank you for the banana statistic! Made my day.
ReplyI used to work in Dairy Research and at the time the industry was trying to say that Spinach blocks calcium absorbtion. The study fed women either spinach or cheddar cheese in different amounts. The results of the study said that spinach does block calcium absorption because the women's calcium balance did not increase with even a large amount of spinach consumption. They failed to mention, and you wouldn't know unless you read the study, that the women who ate the largest amount of cheddar cheese ALSO had no increase in calcium balance. This is how they make conclusions when they do a study. They are flawed on purpose. It is an industry that is trying to sell people stuff like anything else. Why not just take a calcium citrate and magnesium pill and drink whatever you want, like water, for instance? It's much cheaper, that's for sure! I like to enjoy a cold glass of milk from time to time, but it does nothing to promote weight loss. I've tried that myself for years and it does not work. Why would it? Calcium?
ReplyHi Eileen,
Yes I've seen the DNA statistics abused too. I think it matters what you're trying to prove with those statistics.
Not sure about the 33 gene thing... we'd all be unique genetically, but would you actually be able to notice any difference? :-)
~Mike
ReplyWow -- great info. Agendas are seriously muddying the scientific waters eh? It's quite a sad state of affairs. People will let their fellow human beings suffer as long as they can sell their products. Very sad.
ReplyI'd like anyone pushing "full fat raw unhomogenzied organic milk from grass-fed cows" to provide any evidence that drinking it is in fact any less harmful than regular milk.
ReplyThe results aren't any surprise, because pasteurization destroys the calcium benefit of milk.
That's really easy. Go over to realmilk.com's site map and start reading around.
ReplyHi Mike!
I think I can summarize your points as follows (please correct me if I'm wrong):
This isn't quite right - you bring up eating whole food is really the issue, and you argue that humans fall between omnivores and frugivores. I agree with the former and think that the latter is an issue in taxonomy (I think we're closer to bears and rats in terms of what we eat rather than fruit bats though...)
Anyway...
1) What's so bizarre about drinking milk? Some of my vegetarian friends find eating eggs bizarre, and call eggs "chicken foetuses". Most Americans find eating intestine bizarre, athough it's a vital part of a traditional Inuit diet. Insects are a common part of the diet of many primates (and of some humans), but a large number of people don't relish the idea of eating a raw insect.
So, I don't see drinking milk bizarre any more than I consider eating sweetbreads or grasshoppers bizarre. If you can digest milk, then it's a good food. If you can't, cheese and yogurt are still good foods. For what it's worth, I like milk; I once had a wonderful dish of sweetbreads, but I only tried it once; I once had grasshoppers and didn't enjoy them.
2) I agree that consuming grain has its drawbacks as well as its benefits. Consider the emerging evidence that the ratio of Omega-3 to Omega-6 EFAs is important, and the fact that our ratios have become so low because of the dominance of corn and corn-fed animals in our diet. (I use this as an example to support your point of view of the importance of eating whole foods - how many more things like Omega-3:Omega-6 are unknown to us?) A small percentage of people have a problem digesting gluten. We may be making it worse as our diet continues to narrow around so much grain-based food.
But, I think some grain in the diet is good. I think you agree.
3) Every time I think about the invention of cooking, I'm astonished. Are there any human cultures that don't cook food? Either it was invented more than 60,000 years ago or it has been invented many times. Cooking makes many foods digestable or more easily digested, and cooking kills pathogens. It also destroys some vitamins and can create carcinogens, so it has drawbacks. But, given how prevalent it is, the good must far outweigh the bad. Plus, almost everyone prefers far cooked food to raw food. I wouldn't be surprised if our preference of cooked food is genetic.
I suppose our main difference is, you find insight in seeing what our closest primate ancestors eat. I do too, but I find more insight in seeing what humans eat overall.
You know what I find the most bizarre? It's really weird that so many people find attractive the idea of eating endangered species. This is an evil side of being an omnivore, I guess...
ReplyWhat is the concensus on the growth hormones in Milk?
ReplyHi Quito,
Loving your calm intelligent discussion -- a rare skill I find.
I see you sneaked in a point without giving it a number :-) so I call it number 4 below... but to address your points...
1) What we consider bizarre and what we don't is largely cultural. We been brought up to BELIEVE that milk is good for us. Belief is WAY stronger than logic and the good Dr J pointed out to me yesterday when he quoted "You cannot remove with logic, that which was learned without logic in the first place."
Folks don't think of milk drinking as bizarre because they've always done it but it's entirely unnatural. The eating of insects however, as you point out would be very natural although westerners would find the idea disgusting. Go figure. It's cultural. I saw on TV a Maori pull an octupus or a squid out of the water, rip out his favorite part and eat it with gusto -- he'd been brought up with that and had NO problem with. I'd find it difficult.
Drinking the milk of another species is just WEIRD, BIZARRE in my view and had no presidence in nature wherever you care to look.
2.I totally agree with the idea that we don't know what the next scientific discovery will be. That's why it's vital to look to nature over science. Science can help us confirm/deny our hypotheses but to design a diet around studies looking at the minute details is a bad way to go about it.
Unfortunately, the number of people having a problem with gluten is not small -- it's frightening. And missing from the figures are those who are undiagnosed.
My view is that grains should be TOTALLY removed wherever possible but that it's not always practical or possible to do it. Sprouting the grains or essene type breads are a better option. Rotating grains (not eating the same type over and over) is a good idea if you eat them. Rice and quinoa (I think) have low gluten content. Millet as well? Would need to check.
For anyone who is in anyway sick I say get grains out of your diet totally. They may be seriously muddying the waters if you don't know why you're sick and grains can make you sick in a number of different ways.
3. Cooking has been good for the reasons you mentioned. It's a process that can make inedible foods edible and in primitive times, stopped a lot of deaths due to bacterial infections no doubt.
But it has it's down side. I think cooked foods are another stress we can do without. As you know heating something causes the chemical components to rearrange themselves and form new chemicals. This again is an entirely unnatural phenomenon. Yes, humans everywhere do it but the doing doesn't make it right. Humans everywhere are also routinely doing a lot of other crazy stuff.
Again I say we need to observe nature. Not one other species of the millions we share our planet with cooks it food.
Cooking has helped us to diverify into locales which otherwise would have been impossible to live in. Today, we can have better, healthier choices. We're not forced to live on restricted diets of stuff that must be cooked. Again, it's not the be all and end all, it's just ANOTHER stress you can do without.
4. The extra point :-) I'm astonished you think we are closer to bears and rats than chimps. My jaw has dropped. I'm stunned. Look at a chimp and look at a rat -- need I say more? I take you point; we're talking about diet here but in any case, bears only eat raw foods and they only eat food taken directly from nature. And they eat no grains or dairy. By all means, eat the diet of a wild bear, you'd be absolutely flying on it :-) You'd have to take it slowly though because you wouldn't be used to dealing with all the dirt and bugs and bacteria on the food.
Cheers
ReplyMike.
I'm not trying to turn this discussion, but how many people have ever considered the cannibalistic nature of 'eating the body and drinking the blood' as a tenet of a major religion? See Joseph Campbell's work on The Power of Myth.
ReplyHA HA Dr J.. very few I would think. I just wish I had the slightest clue what you were on about!! :-) I looked into "The Power of Myth" -- looks interesting. Will keep an eye out for it.
ReplyMike,
Woah! I said that I thought our diet was more like a bear's or a rat's than like a fruit bat! I think I'd rather eat like a chimp, or a gorilla, than like a bear. I think. Hum. All told, I'd rather eat like a human. ^_^
I might be finally understanding your point: the human diet that evolution gave us is healthier as compared to all the ways we've modified it. Building on this theme: humans evolved in part influenced by the food we ate. So, the healthiest food is what we ate before we modified our diet with agriculture, cooking, and so on. It wasn't all bad - we developed and kept agriculture, cooking, etc. for reasons - but we still don't have a good understading of the total effect. Scientific research just validates that we don't know all of the effects. So, if possible, it is healthiest to follow a diet that reflects what we evolved to eat rather than what we later decided to eat.
The above is a compelling argument - to think otherwise feels like hubris. But, I'm not completely convinced.
- Evolution can lead to local maxima in terms of the ability to pass on your genes. The result isn't always perfect. There's lots of examples of human physiology that may serve a good purpose, but we've learned to do better. I put cooking right in this camp. It's true that cooking can create carcinogens and can destroy some nutrition, but all in all, it's been a big plus.
- Humans continue to evolve. We're now breeding salmon that eat corn products (start watching out! If you eat salmon because of its high Omega-3 levels, this new breed of salmon will instead have low Omega-3); selective breeding can do amazing things. Our environment has done the selective breeding for us for generations now. I've already referred to last year's results that the ability to digest lactose in adults has evolved twice in humans.
But, I understand your point, even though I think eating raw food has serious dangers. And, while I can appreciate your feelings that milk is a bizarre food on philosophical grounds, it is the only animal product I can think of whose principal use - what it was evolved to do - is nutritional.
Nice talking with you, Mike...
ReplyHi Quito,
Nice talking with you too. Your openess and willingness to explore other viewpoints is truly refreshing.
Nutrition can seem a very complex subject, with many "red herrings" about... not least of which is science. Agreement is difficult to find, even among experts who spend their whole lives studying.
I came to nutrition from ill-health. I went from not being able to function at all to finally having some energy after 13 years just by changing my diet. The point is that all the logic and theory pails into insignificance when you've had an experience like that.
That experience is like a bench mark to me; this how we should feel all the time, high energy, clarity of mind, joy for life.
This is the acid test.
Cheers
Reply~Mike.
Sorry, couldn't let this one go.
The reason was probably to have a stable, reliable food supply. Getting food directly from the wild is a difficult, unreliable and often risky business.
You can see the value in it. The problem arises in the cheating of nature. The balances and controls applicable to every other wild species no longer apply. Good in some respects but look where it's led us.
From initially domesticating wild grain and wild animals to big macs, sugar laden diets and hardly a fruit or vegetable in sight.
With power comes responsibility :)
Agriculture was the central technology that ultimately allowed humans to multiply unchecked by the controls of nature. Today, that is a very serious problem. The world population is spiralling out of control.
Modern treatment of animals is an absolute disgrace. We cause immense suffering to innocent creatures. Our top soil is disappearing. Gawd, we now have GM foods that allow farmers to destroy every living plant on a field apart from the GM product.
Greed, profit, high yield, competition with each other and indifference to the whole balance of nature is a very serious problem. It will end in tears. It's already causing immense suffering, both to wildlife and to humans ourselves.
My god, we can't even eat fish out of the oceans anymore because of PCB, dioxins and mercury!! How big are the oceans? And yet concentrations of the poisons are large enough to cause high concentrations in fish.
It's a crazy, mad world but we can't see it because it's there everyday and we're too distracted just trying to survive ourselves.
This is the path the agriculture started. Maybe it was meant to be. I have faith in humanity, that soon we'll wake up and put things right. The sooner the better -- we're on a path to a nightmare world unless something is done very soon.
~Mike
ReplyOkay, Mike and I have wandered far away from milk here... but, I was reading Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of our Ancestors by Nicholas Wade this morning. He referred to Richard Wrangham's theory that cooking came into the human line with Homo ergaster 1.7M years ago. Like other human characteristics that have been claimed to have started with H. ergaster - hunting and gathering behavior, the human family unit as compared to the ape troop - the deduction that cooking started here is indirect.
I must've missed all of this four years ago when Wrangham's theories hit the popular press. Here's an article about it from the London Independent of December 2003. The description of a chimp trying to pass an arm reinforces my claim that I don't want to follow a chimpanzee diet.
ReplyThe article is nearly all conjecture and hypotheses no? The stuff about the German raw-fooders is referring to raw veganism so not really a fair comparison.
Folks new to raw eating often fail to realize that yes, it involves eating a lot more food and since habit is king, they often fail to do that.
The stuff about chimps being able to process a lot more fibre I agree with. But then I never said we should eat a chimp diet.
I believe that we exchanged a whole lot of vegetation in our ancient diet with animal foods -- hence many of the changes mentioned in that article.
If you've never eaten a pure raw diet, you wont realize just how good you feel doing it. Like I said, that speaks louder than a hell of a lot of theory.
From what I've read, the 1.7 million years for cooking seems way to high. The article actually said that this was just assumption, so I don't think we can read to much into that. I thought the figure was more around 350,000 years but hey, who knows.
Quito, I don't pretend to have all the answers. There's a lot of room for discussion and experimentation. I would love science to get behind all this so we can know for sure, those questions which remain.
btw, I'm not suggesting anyone eat raw meat! Just in case there's any confusion over that.
The 10Kg figure for a raw diet is wrong as far as I know. The BBC's Evo diet experiment used 5Kg per person which was around 2000 calories I think. This was, however all plant food, no meat, fish, eggs etc. Incidently, the participants did struggle to eat that volume of food and, well, there was a lot of farting! :-) But, all had massive health improvements in only a few days.
I think the article is a good basis for designing some worthwhile independantly funded science. We need that.
In the meantime we have to have a stab at what we think is best. You're giving it a lot of thought and that's also what we need -- a lot more free-thinkers.
For me, I think that both paleo, hunter-gatherer and chimp comparisons are worthy of investigation. The truth I suspect, judging by RDA levels for the various macronutrients, lies somewhere in the middle.
Cheers
Reply~Mike
I think that sevaral more researches can prove the real effect of milk in weight loss. We can't just believe something that doesn't have the guarantee of scientific research.
Reply