Canada says that Milk is unhealthy!

[ThoD]

The differences in healthniess between fat and sugar and whatnot is a secondary concern. It's a thin person concern. Someone who is 100 pounds overweight is primarily concerned with total calories for weight loss first. Only after that, do they care about the differences. I also did not mean to imply that you should drink soda instead of milk. I meant that if you think soda has too many calories for you right now, then so does milk. You have to sacrifice something. If you want to keep drinking milk, then you have to give up some other food. I'd prefer as much food as possible and to get rid of calories in drinks. I mean to drink water and iced tea. You should get your vitamins, proteins, and good fats in food form, not milk.

No it's not fine. If you are supposed to eat an 800 calorie lunch, and your mac and cheese is 600 calories, you should not have a 400 calorie of chocolate milk with it. That's 200 calories over budget.

The difference in healthiness between fat and sugar is a PRIMARY concern. There is a limit to how misinformed you can be, especially considering they teach you this stuff at school! I know this is irrelevant to the milk topic, but since the thread has already been derailed, let's make it educative a bit. Calories do NOT matter when it comes to weight gaining or losing AT ALL! Calories are Kilo Joules, basically ENERGY! Energy can't be contained, what CAN be contained though is the COMPONENTS to create the energy, meaning the substances your body will burn to generate the necessary Joules. Now, the body normally consumes fat (which is actually 100% healthy for you depending on it's type, but that's a story for another time), but it will sometimes store other things to burn depending on what will generate the most energy. For example, energy boosters intended for athletes are sort of an emergency substitute that can burn really fast. Anyway, sugar generates about 30% more energy than fat does, despite it getting "burned" CONSIDERABLY harder (reason it's hard to lose weight gained by sugars). One additional thing that saccharides have is that they are LARGE, with their molecules being almost 12 times larger, yet the body will store them because it thinks it will get more energy from them. It will ALSO try to store an amount of substances to generate the same energy it normally would, so basically for every molecule of fat it would store, it will instead store sugar to an 0.7:1 ratio, but remember that they are also 12 times larger, so they cause the body to become larger over time, on top of stretching it.

So there you have it, calories do NOT matter, what matters is what the body stores in order to produce the energy it needs to function and fat is literally the best possible option for that. Also, consuming fat while working out makes it get stored in place of the sugar while it will always prioritize the burning of sugar because of it's higher energy output.

Now, let's get back on topic, Canada has lost it

 

[lexarvn]

raw milk != pasteurized milk

And milk is for getting fat, not for being slim. That is why it is produced by any animal. So it's got loads of calories and fat and whatnot. Not "bad", but not something you're suppose to be drinking loads of. It does have good stuff, like calcium and whatnot, but you just have to keep in mind it's got loads of calories and other things to fatten you up.

Yeah, raw milk != pasteurized milk, but that doesn't mean raw milk is actually bad for you either. Every study I've seen about specifically raw milk being bad for you has to do with it getting contaminated, so it's not the actual milk that is bad for you. To be fair, it has to be really difficult to make sure the milk stays clean since you have to keep cows perfectly healthy and in sanitary conditions and make sure all your equipment stays sanitized. Most people agree that pasteurizing is significantly easier so that is why most milk is pasteurized. Here in Washington, you can get raw milk, but it is very expensive due to the production cost difference and regulations around it.

Any studies that just claim milk is bad for you in general it's always the caloric intake (like you mentioned) or lactose intolerance that is the concern, at least from what I've read.

 

[Slartibartfast42]

The difference in healthiness between fat and sugar is a PRIMARY concern. There is a limit to how misinformed you can be, especially considering they teach you this stuff at school! I know this is irrelevant to the milk topic, but since the thread has already been derailed, let's make it educative a bit. Calories do NOT matter when it comes to weight gaining or losing AT ALL! Calories are Kilo Joules, basically ENERGY! Energy can't be contained, what CAN be contained though is the COMPONENTS to create the energy, meaning the substances your body will burn to generate the necessary Joules. Now, the body normally consumes fat (which is actually 100% healthy for you depending on it's type, but that's a story for another time), but it will sometimes store other things to burn depending on what will generate the most energy. For example, energy boosters intended for athletes are sort of an emergency substitute that can burn really fast. Anyway, sugar generates about 30% more energy than fat does, despite it getting "burned" CONSIDERABLY harder (reason it's hard to lose weight gained by sugars). One additional thing that saccharides have is that they are LARGE, with their molecules being almost 12 times larger, yet the body will store them because it thinks it will get more energy from them. It will ALSO try to store an amount of substances to generate the same energy it normally would, so basically for every molecule of fat it would store, it will instead store sugar to an 0.7:1 ratio, but remember that they are also 12 times larger, so they cause the body to become larger over time, on top of stretching it.

So there you have it, calories do NOT matter, what matters is what the body stores in order to produce the energy it needs to function and fat is literally the best possible option for that. Also, consuming fat while working out makes it get stored in place of the sugar while it will always prioritize the burning of sugar because of it's higher energy output.

Now, let's get back on topic, Canada has lost it

Dude, could you be any more wrong? I have a PhD in biochemistry and what you said is all wrong. Try eating 4000 calories a day and see if you don't gain weight. You're an idiot. A Naturally thin persons body wants more carbs than fat, and a fat persons body wants more fat. A fat person should consume lots of proteins and fat, and less carbs, but it still has to be under a certain amount of total calories. You can't just eat unlimited amounts of fat. All excise calories, once your glycogen reserves are full, are converted to fat. Eat too little calories, and you lose glycogen reserves. Keep eating too little calories, and you lose fat.

 

[ThoD]

Dude, could you be any more wrong? I have a PhD in biochemistry and what you said is all wrong. Try eating 4000 calories a day and see if you don't gain weight. You're an idiot. A Naturally thin persons body wants more carbs than fat, and a fat persons body wants more fat. A fat person should consume lots of proteins and fat, and less carbs, but it still has to be under a certain amount of total calories. You can't just eat unlimited amounts of fat. All excise calories, once your glycogen reserves are full, are converted to fat. Eat too little calories, and you lose glycogen reserves. Keep eating too little calories, and you lose fat.

I'm eating 11K calories a day and am not fat and I know a LOT of people who eat WELL OVER 4000 calories a day and are pretty damn slim with hardly any work out. You don't seem to understand what calories actually are, it's a NUMBER that doesn't mean a thing and is simply used to display how much energy something gives you. Go look into people doing sports or even what non-excersising (except simply going about their lives) normal sized adults eat all over the world and you will understand that calories are the last thing that matters. Here for example, a normal lunch (meaning one meal) alone is 3000+ calories, yet you don't see people being fat or anything unless for those who either have a health issue causing them to get fat or those who eat a LOT of sugar. I never said unlimited amounts of fat, but it IS true that after your body has an excess, it will discard it. What is also true is that saccharides are considerably larger than fat and are stored instead of it, which is the main cause people get fat nowadays. Instead of calling me an idiot, try and explain EXACTLY what I said wrong and how it's wrong, because what I said is written in medical books, material used for med schools, etc.. As for "naturally thin" bodies needing more carbs, no, SKINNY ones do, normal body requires a proper balance of the two. And want to know another interesting fact that has also been proven repeatedly? Body fat that is caused by sugar is relatively soft and flabby, while that caused by fats is tough, even if they are supposed to be the same amount.

 

[osaka35]

Yeah, raw milk != pasteurized milk, but that doesn't mean raw milk is actually bad for you either. Every study I've seen about specifically raw milk being bad for you has to do with it getting contaminated, so it's not the actual milk that is bad for you. To be fair, it has to be really difficult to make sure the milk stays clean since you have to keep cows perfectly healthy and in sanitary conditions and make sure all your equipment stays sanitized. Most people agree that pasteurizing is significantly easier so that is why most milk is pasteurized. Here in Washington, you can get raw milk, but it is very expensive due to the production cost difference and regulations around it.

Any studies that just claim milk is bad for you in general it's always the caloric intake (like you mentioned) or lactose intolerance that is the concern, at least from what I've read.

i mean, i can agree with that. But that's for a great deal of food. Usually they just say it's "unsafe" rather than "unhealthy", like not cooking spinach or chicken. I guess I tend to give someone the benefit of the doubt and just assume they don't know the difference between unsafe and unhealthy. Like I'll hear someone say spinach is unhealthy unless you cook it. It can be dangerous and unsafe, because spinach is only dangerous when it's not cleaned properly, and is more dangerous from silly "organic" practices (ecoli). You CAN eat raw chicken, but there's risk there depending on a variety of factors outside of your control. It's similar to raw milk in a lot of ways, actually. I'm fine with nearly no risk for a slightly less amazing taste.

I suppose it's bad for you in the way a soda is bad for you. Just loads of calories mainly, though milk has a bit of healthy stuff in it. You find better elsewhere, with far fewer calories, but I agree with your sentiment. Not much is unhealthy, it's just unhealthy in the kinds of portions most people eat them. A sip of soda ain't going to hurt much, but a dozen a day surely will. You already know all this, I just wanted to put it out there XD

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I'm eating 11K calories a day and am not fat and I know a LOT of people who eat WELL OVER 4000 calories a day and are pretty damn slim with hardly any work out. You don't seem to understand what calories actually are, it's a NUMBER that doesn't mean a thing and is simply used to display how much energy something gives you. Go look into people doing sports or even what non-excersising (except simply going about their lives) normal sized adults eat all over the world and you will understand that calories are the last thing that matters. Here for example, a normal lunch (meaning one meal) alone is 3000+ calories, yet you don't see people being fat or anything unless for those who either have a health issue causing them to get fat or those who eat a LOT of sugar. I never said unlimited amounts of fat, but it IS true that after your body has an excess, it will discard it. What is also true is that saccharides are considerably larger than fat and are stored instead of it, which is the main cause people get fat nowadays. Instead of calling me an idiot, try and explain EXACTLY what I said wrong and how it's wrong, because what I said is written in medical books, material used for med schools, etc.. As for "naturally thin" bodies needing more carbs, no, SKINNY ones do, normal body requires a proper balance of the two. And want to know another interesting fact that has also been proven repeatedly? Body fat that is caused by sugar is relatively soft and flabby, while that caused by fats is tough, even if they are supposed to be the same amount.

You gave anecdote though, not evidence. What medical books are you discussing, where calories don't matter? And yes, metabolism is important, but metabolism varies from person to person.

Wouldn't it be better to say that metabolism and exercise sets calories out, and will vary from person to person, but calories in is still the deciding factor in weight gain and loss? Most of the studies I've read recently say this, so I'm curious where you're getting your info.

Also, calories are our measurement of, what, potential chemical energy I guess. Our body doesn't use pure energy or something, we just use calories as a way to measure the system your human body uses. It converts what we put in into what it uses, chemically. We convert the data about the stored chemical energy to a measurement we can standardize and understand: calories. I mean, 3500 calories equal a pound of fat...but it's not like human bodies body knows or cares about the labels, that's just its way of understanding and simplifying the process and mechanisms used. We let the body do its thing, we observe

 

[Slartibartfast42]

I'm eating 11K calories a day and am not fat and I know a LOT of people who eat WELL OVER 4000 calories a day and are pretty damn slim with hardly any work out. You don't seem to understand what calories actually are, it's a NUMBER that doesn't mean a thing and is simply used to display how much energy something gives you. Go look into people doing sports or even what non-excersising (except simply going about their lives) normal sized adults eat all over the world and you will understand that calories are the last thing that matters. Here for example, a normal lunch (meaning one meal) alone is 3000+ calories, yet you don't see people being fat or anything unless for those who either have a health issue causing them to get fat or those who eat a LOT of sugar. I never said unlimited amounts of fat, but it IS true that after your body has an excess, it will discard it. What is also true is that saccharides are considerably larger than fat and are stored instead of it, which is the main cause people get fat nowadays. Instead of calling me an idiot, try and explain EXACTLY what I said wrong and how it's wrong, because what I said is written in medical books, material used for med schools, etc.. As for "naturally thin" bodies needing more carbs, no, SKINNY ones do, normal body requires a proper balance of the two. And want to know another interesting fact that has also been proven repeatedly? Body fat that is caused by sugar is relatively soft and flabby, while that caused by fats is tough, even if they are supposed to be the same amount.

I'm not talking to you anymore. You know nothing. Those numbers are outrageous. They might be correct in Joules, but not in Calories. You can't even tell the difference between Joues and Calories, I don't want to talk to you. 3000 calories is a very big number. Very few people can eat that at once. You mean Joules. 3000 calories is more than an entire large pizza. 3000 calories is more than an entire kilogram of steak. 11,000 calories a day is what like an Olympic athlete or the worlds strongest man eats in a day. You aren't eating that. You might be eating 11,000 Joules. Yes, that's a measure of energy. ALL EXCESS ENERGY IS CONVERTED TO FAT. There are 3500 calories in a pound of fat. Eat 3500 calories of extra sugar or extra fat, it turns into stored fat. This is basic biochemistry. I ate fewer calories, I lost weight. It's as simple as that. No, your body doesn't just store high levels of saccharides. You have a limited amount of glycogen reserves. People who are not losing weight, have totally full glycogen reserves. If you go on a diet, you lose those glycogen reserves and the water that goes with them. So you lose a few pounds the first week, and then maybe one pound per week after that. If you stop your diet, you will gain those glycogen reserves back. If your glycogen is full, all extra energy is converted to fat. Naturally thin, skinny, normal, all mean the same to me. These people should eat a balanced diet. Obese people should eat a low carb, high fat diet. You are misreading those books. Try taking a real class.

 

[Nogardrevlis]

Need my Milk , someday everything in the f**cking world will be unhealthy...

 

[Slartibartfast42]

To get on track. Milk isn't unhealthy. It has lots of nutrition. But it also causes a lot of problems for people. A lot of people's systems are no longer tuned for milk. They should stop if they have problems. Raw milk is potentially dangerous. If you want to risk it, for it, I don't care. Adults should probably be drinking 2% milk, you wouldn't even notice the difference after a little while. A little milk in your cereal or coffee is fine. People who drink milk by the liter like water should not be doing that. If you want a small glass of milk to go with a turkey sandwich with carrot sticks, fine. But if you are eating a whole box of mac and cheese, you should not pair that with chocolate milk. That's the kind I would do in the past. You don't need peanut butter and jelly sandwich, and potato chips, and a pint whole milk. Eat carrot sticks instead of chips, and 1 or 2% milk, say 12oz or less, and call that a better lunch. Obviously, this all depends on your caloric requirements. Athletes need more, they can have more milk. But if someone is 100 pounds overweight, they need to cut something. It makes the most sense to cut liquid calories as much as possible. It's easier to stop drinking 600 calories worth of beer than stop eating 600 calories worth of food. People can make their cuts however they want of course. A 400 cup of cocoa is nice, but 400 calories worth of premium ice cream is even better. People can make their choices.

 

[pasc]

here we go again...

This.

It's asif people are just searching for things to bash. Today it's milk, tomorrow peanuts.

A lot of people's systems are no longer tuned for milk. They should stop if they have problems. Raw milk is potentially dangerous. If you want to risk it, for it, I don't care

Yeah.. no
It depends on whether you grew up with milk.
Some cultures (China f.e.) don't give their children milk. Therefore the enzymes in the body that are usually responsible for breaking down the milk compounds are turned off (for good). Those people will not be able to drink standart milk without certain drawbacks.
(Thats what lactose free milk is for)