Natural Eating

[MasamKilik]

Today I was talking to a kid from Africa some where and he was ripped out of his mind. We started talking about weight lifting, body building and stuff and he noticed I was drinking whey protein. He told me that he doesn't because it's not "natural" and that the material it supplies the muscles so that they don't stay developed for as long. I didn't really believe him, so I was wondering if anyone knows more about this, and if I should drink whey at all.

[DeeJay]

He's talking complete shit and whey is fine to consume.

[Trickstar]

Whey is an alternative for protein. It is better if you could get a natural source of protein but when you can't, use whey. There is nothing wrong with that.

[MasamKilik]

I thought so... because protein is protein isn't it? It's not like whey is a fake substitute for food right?

[MasamKilik]

Whey is an alternative for protein. It is better if you could get a natural source of protein but when you can't, use whey. There is nothing wrong with that.

Why is it better to eat a natural source of protein?

[frankinstine]

natural sources naturally work better.

[MasamKilik]

natural sources naturally work better.

But it's not anything like my muscles will deteriorate quicker since it's not natural?

[frankinstine]

i dont believe so.

[compleks]

What the hell does 'natural' mean anyway?

As far as I'm concerned, whey is just as natural as milk or cheese.

[Rahf]

Whey IS natural you twats! Whey powder is derived from milk which in all honesty is a pretty natural thing. There is NO direct and adverse difference between protein from whey than protein from any dairy product. Your african punk is talking crap.

You buy and drink whey if you can't fill your daily protein intake from food. There's no adverse effect on muscles more than the fact that it is protein.

It's protein from milk. It is fully natural.

[Cully]

Why is it better to eat a natural source of protein?

I think the reason is that natural sources of protein are easier for your body to break down and use..... If you use a powdered version (eg, chemically altered), then your body has to work harder to break down the chemicals.

But then.... red meat takes up to 48 hours to digest, so that's probably all bullcrap..... A whey protein milkshake is digested pretty damn fast.

And to all those people who say milk is natural???? I have a big problem with cow's milk.... I still drink it, but I don't say it's as good as people think. Human Bodies have a problem digesting Cows milk.... Even cows only take that type of milk when they are really young... Then they get bigger, they don't drink milk at all.

Sure it's natural... but then so is shit... but who eats that? Natural doesn't always mean good. It's only good if the human body can digest it properly.... cows milk is not one of those things.

I use meat or supplements... To be honest.... Use any of them.... Whey Powders are really good because it's hard (and expensive) to eat 10 breasts of chicken a day.... Protein shakes help you take in more protein when you need it.

Of course... it all means nothing if you're not working out properly.

[Rahf]

I think the reason is that natural sources of protein are easier for your body to break down and use..... If you use a powdered version (eg, chemically altered), then your body has to work harder to break down the chemicals.

But then.... red meat takes up to 48 hours to digest, so that's probably all bullcrap..... A whey protein milkshake is digested pretty damn fast.

And to all those people who say milk is natural???? I have a big problem with cow's milk.... I still drink it, but I don't say it's as good as people think. Human Bodies have a problem digesting Cows milk.... Even cows only take that type of milk when they are really young... Then they get bigger, they don't drink milk at all.

Sure it's natural... but then so is shit... but who eats that? Natural doesn't always mean good. It's only good if the human body can digest it properly.... cows milk is not one of those things.

I use meat or supplements... To be honest.... Use any of them.... Whey Powders are really good because it's hard (and expensive) to eat 10 breasts of chicken a day.... Protein shakes help you take in more protein when you need it.

Of course... it all means nothing if you're not working out properly.

Your fervent use of full stops is making my head spin.

Whey is a natural protein, as stated before. It is not chemically altered in that it screws up your digestive system, unless you are lactose intolerant in which case there is a natural explanation to it. Whey is a fast acting protein which is something that if not all then a big majority of the "natural" grocery goods lack.

If you don't want to drink milk because it is not "natural" then don't. I see it as a good source for nutrients and as a good beverage. Feces contains a humongous amount of harmful bacteria and isn't good to eat, plus it tastes like... well shit. I also doubt that it takes a full 48 hours for a slab of meat to pass through your system.

Unless you are lactose intolerant, there is no problem with drinking milk. There is problem with eating shit, both hygienic and in terms of flavour :wink:

If you need to eat 10 chicken breasts a day you are either obese, naive or just plain boring when it comes to food. Whey is a good supplement but that's all it is. Don't let it become a mainstay in a diet, the majority of all macronutrients should still come from food since whey lacks micronutrients.

[anfeyd]

Your fervent use of full stops is making my head spin.

Whey is a natural protein, as stated before. It is not chemically altered in that it screws up your digestive system, unless you are lactose intolerant in which case there is a natural explanation to it. Whey is a fast acting protein which is something that if not all then a big majority of the "natural" grocery goods lack.

If you don't want to drink milk because it is not "natural" then don't. I see it as a good source for nutrients and as a good beverage. Feces contains a humongous amount of harmful bacteria and isn't good to eat, plus it tastes like... well shit. I also doubt that it takes a full 48 hours for a slab of meat to pass through your system.

Unless you are lactose intolerant, there is no problem with drinking milk. There is problem with eating shit, both hygienic and in terms of flavour :wink:

If you need to eat 10 chicken breasts a day you are either obese, naive or just plain boring when it comes to food. Whey is a good supplement but that's all it is. Don't let it become a mainstay in a diet, the majority of all macronutrients should still come from food since whey lacks micronutrients.

Once I read Cully's post I was upset. However, due to Rahf's post I'm now feeling ok.

[Steve]

If Africans knew anything about science they wouldn't be starving to death and dying of AIDS

[Swartz]

Wow haha

[Casper]

theres a reason why africa is a 3rd world country

[Skilzat85X]

Hahahaha Steve.

The only reason people don't think Whey is natural is because you can't find it growing on a tree or spewing out of an animals utters. It just takes a little bit of chemistry to get the whey out of something natural, so even though it still is natural people are like "OMGZ people had to make it thoowwuhh".
http://www.majorspoilers.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/whatifwolverine/WOLVERINE_21image_big.jpg

[Cully]

Whey is a natural protein, as stated before.

No - Whey powders you can buy are chemically altered. Whey or milk plasma is the liquid remaining after milk has been curdled and strained; it is a by-product of the manufacture of cheese or casein and has several commercial uses. Whey Protein powders are derived from this.

If you don't want to drink milk because it is not "natural" then don't.

I do drink milk, but I also realise that it's not designed for the human body, which is why a lot of problems come from milk... Asthma being one thing (which I have).

I also doubt that it takes a full 48 hours for a slab of meat to pass through your system.

Red Meat CAN take up to 48 hours to digest in your stomach. This depends on what type, how much you ate, and your blood type. I am "O-Negative", so it would take probably 24 hours or so to digest in my stomach...

Unless you are lactose intolerant, there is no problem with drinking milk.

Wrong.... It can cause so many respitory problems. Did you also know that Casein (from milk) is one of the ingredients of glue? A lot of humans can't digest this properly either. Drinking milk is also linked with Diabetes and Cancer (look up BGH).

There is also a problem with a protein enzyme called xanthine oxidase which is in cow's milk. Normally, proteins are broken down once you digest them.

However, when milk is homogenized, small fat globules surround the xanthine oxidase and it is absorbed intact into your blood stream. There is some very compelling research demonstrating clear associations with this absorbed enzyme and increased risks of heart disease.

What is milk? Milk is fluid secreted by the mammary glands of females for the nourishment of THEIR young. No other animal in the world drinks milk after the age of weaning (and giving milk to petcats doesn't count)

If you need to eat 10 chicken breasts a day you are either obese, naive or just plain boring when it comes to food. Whey is a good supplement but that's all it is. Don't let it become a mainstay in a diet, the majority of all macronutrients should still come from food since whey lacks micronutrients.

Ok... maybe that was too much... but 6 chicken breasts = 150g protein or so right? This is about as much as I'd need per day if I had no other protein sources.

WHEY IS a good supplement.... The point I was trying to say is that it's not "natural" (eg, it's not a naturally occurring food)

The only reason people don't think Whey is natural is because you can't find it growing on a tree or spewing out of an animals utters. It just takes a little bit of chemistry to get the whey out of something natural, so even though it still is natural people are like "OMGZ people had to make it thoowwuhh".

Wait... WTF do you think the word natural means?

I'm pretty sure "Natural" means that it's created by nature or by an animal. The very fact that they have to use a factory or something to get the whey out of it MEANS that it's not natural.

Having said that..... it's still very good for you IMO.

[compleks]

This is about to get interesting.

Too bad I have to get going.

[Cully]

I'm about to stop caring anymore... Search google for "milk problems" and you'll probably get the info you need instead of this turning into a quote fest :P

Having said all that... I drink milk... and I have Asthma.... A good friend of mine had asthma worse than me for 20 years and it just went away when he gave up drinking milk.... How strange. >_>

The chinese don't have "dairy" milk.. and they don't know what asthma is.... it doesn't seem to exist in china.... They have other respiratory problems, but usually because of the smog.

Normally I use my asthma inhaler (ventolin) 3-4 times a day (when I wake up, just before cycling to work, just before cycling home from work and maybe 1 other time in the day).... I recently came back from a months trip to china. I didn't have any milk or dairy over there (well.. I had soy milk but that's different) and I only used my inhaler 3 times in the whole month... That's like a record for me.

Another coincidence? maybe

[compleks]

I drink alot of milk, and don't have any respiratory problems. Coincidence?

I'm on the fence to be honest. I've heard both sides of the 'milk debate' a thousand times, and have decided I don't really care either way. I don't think milk is evil, and I don't think it's awesome.

But for every negative in regards to milk, there is a positive, which is why this debate never makes any progress.

Now I really do have to go.

[Cully]

I drink alot of milk, and don't have any respiratory problems. Coincidence?

That's not the same as what I said. Milk "can" cause respiratory problems. Mostly due to the fact that a lot of humans can't digest some of the things in milk. You obviously can digest these things, so that's good for you.

I'm on the fence to be honest. I've heard both sides of the 'milk debate' a thousand times, and have decided I don't really care either way. I don't think milk is evil, and I don't think it's awesome.

Actually I'm almost the same way. The fact that I drink milk shows that I really don't give a crap about it, even though I sound like I do.

[Steve]

Well a lot of humans can't digest, say, peanuts, without dying horribly but that doesn't mean that they're "unnatural"

[Lobo]

Ugh. You've either got the genes to handle cow's milk or you don't. The "milk debate" is fucking redundant.

[Rahf]

Association of consumption of products containing milk fat with reduced asthma risk in pre-school children: the PIAMA birth cohort study

Conclusions: In pre-school children, frequent consumption of products containing milk fat is associated with a reduced risk of asthma symptoms.

2003 BMJ Publishing Group & British Thoracic Society

Pretty interesting. Granted the studies were made on pre-school children but I'll also add the fact that I could find no information whatsoever on the claim that milk contributes to respiratory problems. Other than creating an allergic reaction in patients that already suffer from asthma.

Regarding asthma in China:

The latest statistics from the China Co-operative Team for Child Asthma Prevention (CCTCAP) show that the incidence of asthma countrywide is 1.97 per cent.
´
Shanghai Star http://app1.chinadaily.com.cn/star/2004/0101/he19-1.html

A low number but take into consideration the fact that big parts of China are still in a developing state and overall they are rural areas. Did you have lifestyle changes in China? That can also be a big part in your use of the inhaler.

For training individuals, a diet dense with dairy increases fat oxidation, compared to a diet without it.

Obes Res. 2005 Dec;13(12):2102-12. Effect of low- and high-calcium dairy-based diets on macronutrient oxidation in humans.

Some more info on milk and weight/fat loss for example:

These concepts are confirmed by epidemiological data as well as recent clinical trials which demonstrate that diets which include at least three daily servings of dairy products result in significant reductions in body fat mass in obese humans in the absence of caloric restriction and markedly accelerates the weight and body fat loss secondary to caloric restriction compared to low dairy diets. These data indicate an important role for dairy products in both the ability to maintain a healthy weight and the management of overweight and obesity.


Journal of the American College of Nutrition, Vol. 24, No. 90006, 537S-546S (2005)

Regarding whey, it's still not at a metabolic disadvantage because it has been separated from the milk and turned into powder. Both milk and whey are awesome.

[jan]

Whey is an alternative for protein. It is better if you could get a natural source of protein but when you can't, use whey. There is nothing wrong with that.

Whey is NOT an alternative for protein. It is protein. It's concentrated whey protein. Whey exists in cheese and stuff.



... so much for not updating the page before replying.

[rock_ten]

I made a post about dairy and fat loss last August, here it is again. Skip to the bottom of the quote if you cba:

As much for my own information as anything else, I have compiled some of the available studies on the effect of calcium/dairy on body fat, weight loss, etc. There seems to essentially be no general agreement.

These are just from the first few pages of pubmed results. There are others I wanted to include, but couldn't find again. Theres plenty more for either side of the issue if you want to look. There are quite a few using rats too, but I only included human studies here. One important consideration is that many of the studies involve obese subjects, which is quite a different situation to many of ours.

Studies showing a positive effect



link (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=15672113&query_hl=8&itool=pubmed_docsum)


BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: We have previously demonstrated an antiobesity effect of dietary Ca; this is largely mediated by Ca suppression of calcitriol levels, resulting in reduced adipocyte intracellular Ca2+ and, consequently, a coordinated increase in lipid utilization and decrease in lipogenesis. Notably, dairy Ca is markedly more effective than other Ca sources. DESIGN: Obese subjects were placed on balanced deficit (-500 kcal/day) diets and randomized to control (400-500 mg Ca/day; n = 16) or yogurt (1100 mg Ca/day; n = 18) treatments for 12 weeks. Dietary macronutrients and fiber were held constant at the US average. MEASUREMENTS: Body weight, body fat and fat distribution (by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry), blood pressure and circulating lipids were measured at baseline and after 12 weeks of intervention. RESULTS: Fat loss was markedly increased on the yogurt diet (-4.43+/-0.47 vs -2.75+/-0.73 kg in yogurt and control groups; P<0.005) while lean tissue loss was reduced by 31% on the yogurt diet. Trunk fat loss was augmented by 81% on the yogurt vs control diet (P<0.001), and this was reflected in a markedly greater reduction in waist circumference (-3.99+/-0.48 vs -0.58+/-1.04 cm, P<0.001). Further, the fraction of fat lost from the trunk was higher on the yogurt diet vs control (P<0.005). CONCLUSION: Isocaloric substitution of yogurt for other foods significantly augments fat loss and reduces central adiposity during energy restriction.




link ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=15090625
)


OBJECTIVE: Increasing 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D in response to low-calcium diets stimulates adipocyte Ca2+ influx and, as a consequence, stimulates lipogenesis, suppresses lipolysis, and increases lipid accumulation, whereas increasing dietary calcium inhibits these effects and markedly accelerates fat loss in mice subjected to caloric restriction. Our objective was to determine the effects of increasing dietary calcium in the face of caloric restriction in humans. RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES: We performed a randomized, placebo-controlled trial in 32 obese adults. Patients were maintained for 24 weeks on balanced deficit diets (500 kcal/d deficit) and randomized to a standard diet (400 to 500 mg of dietary calcium/d supplemented with placebo), a high-calcium diet (standard diet supplemented with 800 mg of calcium/d), or high-dairy diet (1200 to 1300 mg of dietary calcium/d supplemented with placebo). RESULTS: Patients assigned to the standard diet lost 6.4 +/- 2.5% of their body weight, which was increased by 26% (to 8.6 +/- 1.1%) on the high-calcium diet and 70% (to 10.9 +/- 1.6% of body weight) on the high-dairy diet (p < 0.01). Fat loss was similarly augmented by the high-calcium and high-dairy diets, by 38% and 64%, respectively (p < 0.01). Moreover, fat loss from the trunk region represented 19.0 +/- 7.9% of total fat loss on the low-calcium diet, and this fraction was increased to 50.1 +/- 6.4% and 66.2 +/- 3.0% on the high-calcium and high-dairy diets, respectively (p < 0.001). [DISCUSSION: Increasing dietary calcium significantly augmented weight and fat loss secondary to caloric restriction and increased the percentage of fat lost from the trunk region, whereas dairy products exerted a substantially greater effect.
.



link ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=16076991
)

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to determine the effects of dairy consumption on adiposity and body composition in obese African Americans. RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES: We performed two randomized trials in obese African-American adults. In the first (weight maintenance), 34 subjects were maintained on a low calcium (500 mg/d)/low dairy (<1 serving/d) or high dairy (1200 mg Ca/d diet including 3 servings of dairy) diet with no change in energy or macronutrient intake for 24 weeks. In the second trial (weight loss), 29 subjects were similarly randomized to the low or high dairy diets and placed on a caloric restriction regimen (-500 kcal/d). RESULTS: In the first trial, body weight remained stable for both groups throughout the maintenance study. The high dairy diet resulted in decreases in total body fat (2.16 kg, p < 0.01), trunk fat (1.03 kg, p < 0.01), insulin (18.7 pM, p < 0.04), and blood pressure (6.8 mm Hg systolic, p < 0.01; 4.25 mm Hg diastolic, p < 0.01) and an increase in lean mass (1.08 kg, p < 0.04), whereas there were no significant changes in the low dairy group. In the second trial, although both diets produced significant weight and fat loss, weight and fat loss on the high dairy diet were approximately 2-fold higher (p < 0.01), and loss of lean body mass was markedly reduced (p < 0.001) compared with the low dairy diet. DISCUSSION: Substitution of calcium-rich foods in isocaloric diets reduced adiposity and improved metabolic profiles in obese African Americans without energy restriction or weight loss and augmented weight and fat loss secondary to energy restriction.






link ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=15294594
)

Background - Calcium homeostasis is important to a large number of physiological processes in the body. Recently, calcium has been linked to the regulation of adiposity. However, it remains to be confirmed whether this occurs through modulation of energy expenditure or energy intake. Objective - To compare the acute effects of different sources of calcium on energy expenditure and substrate utilisation. Design - 8 subjects (mean + SEM, age 53.8 + 2.3 yr, weight 92.4 + 7.0 kg, and BMI 32.5 + 1.0 kg/m2) participated in a randomised, single blind, 3-way crossover design. Subjects were provided a low calcium (dairy)- low vitamin D meal (LD), a high calcium (dairy)- high vitamin D meal (HD), and a high calcium (non-dairy, calcium citrate)- low vitamin D meal (HC). The energy, macronutrient content and volume of meals were matched. The LD, HD and HC diets contained 175 mg, 531 mg and 575 mg of calcium, and 40 IU, 364 IU and 45 IU of vitamin D, respectively. Diet induced thermogenesis (DIT), fat oxidation (FOX) and carbohydrate oxidation (COX) were measured using the Deltatrac II (Datex, Finland), that is based on indirect calorimetry. Results were analysed as change from fasting (resting) values. Statistical analysis employed a repeated measures ANOVA with a LSD post-hoc procedure, when appropriate. Outcomes - Change in glucose concentrations were not different between meals, when examined over 2h and over the entire postprandial period. Change in respiratory quotient (DeltaRQ) was significantly different between meals (P<0.05) with a lower rise following the high calcium meals (LC 0.3+/-0.1, HD -0.013+/-0.1, HC -0.025+/-0.11). Consequently, DeltaFOX was significantly higher following the high calcium meals (LC -6.5+/-2.2, HD 3.3+/-2.5, HC 2.93+/-2.34g.6h,P<0.01), and (DeltaCOX was significantly lower (LD 34.1+/-7.7, HD 15.2+/-7.1, HC 13.6+/-7.5 g.6h,P<0.05). There were no statistical differences in DIT between meals, though a trend for a 10 % higher DIT was seen on the HD and HC meals (LD 6.5+/-1.1%,HD 7.0+/-0.8%,HC 7.2+/-1.4 %). Conclusions - Calcium acutely stimulated postprandial fat oxidation and suppressed carbohydrate oxidation. Both dairy and non-dairy calcium meals were equipotent in their effects when examined over the 6 h postprandial period. Acknowledgement - The study was funded by Dairy Australia.



Studies showing no positive effect







link ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16286519&query_hl=20&itool=pubmed_DocSum
)

OBJECTIVE: Recent evidence suggests that diets high in calcium and dairy products are associated with lower body weight, particularly lower body fat levels. The purpose of this study was to compare weight and body fat loss on a calorie-restricted, low-dairy (CR) vs. high-dairy (CR+D) diet. RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES: Fifty-four subjects (BMI 30 +/- 2.5 kg/m2, 45 +/- 6.6 years, 4 men) were randomly assigned to calorie-restricted (-500 kcal/d) low-dairy calcium (n = 29; approximately 1 serving dairy/d, 500 mg/d calcium) or high-dairy calcium (n = 25; 3 to 4 servings dairy/d, 1200 to 1400 mg/d calcium) diets for 12 months. Main outcome measures included change in weight (kilograms) and body fat (percentage). RESULTS: There were no significant differences between groups at baseline. At 12 months, weight and body fat loss were not significantly different. Subjects in the CR vs. CR+D conditions lost 9.6 +/- 6.5 vs. 10.8 +/- 5.9 kg (p = 0.56) and 9.0 +/- 3.8 vs. 10.1 +/- 3.6 kg body fat (p = 0.37). DISCUSSION: These findings suggest that a high-dairy calcium diet does not substantially improve weight loss beyond what can be achieved in a behavioral intervention.





link ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16129716&query_hl=20&itool=pubmed_DocSum
)


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16129716&query_hl=20&itool=pubmed_DocSum

OBJECTIVE: Studies suggest that high-dairy and high-fiber/low-glycemic index diets may facilitate weight loss, but data are conflicting. The effects on weight loss and body fat of a high-dairy diet and a diet high in dairy and fiber and low in glycemic index were compared with a standard diet. RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES: Ninety obese subjects were recruited into a randomized trial of three diets designed to provide a calorie deficit of 500 calories/d over a 48-week period. The study compared a moderate (not low)-calcium diet with a high-calcium diet. RESULTS: Seventy-two subjects completed the study. Significant weight and fat loss occurred with all three diets. A diet with 1400 mg of calcium did not result in greater weight (11.8 +/- 6.1 kg) or fat (9.0 +/- 6.0 kg) loss than a diet with 800 mg of calcium (10.0 +/- 6.8 and 7.5 +/- 6.6 kg, respectively). A diet with 1400 mg of calcium, increased fiber content, and fewer high-glycemic index foods did not result in greater weight (10.6 +/- 6.8 kg) or fat (8.5 +/- 7.8 kg) loss than the standard diet with 800 mg of calcium. Lipid profile, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, leptin, fasting glucose, and insulin improved significantly, but there were no significant differences between the experimental diets and the control diet. DISCUSSION: We found no evidence that diets higher than 800 mg of calcium in dairy products or higher in fiber and lower in glycemic index enhance weight reduction beyond what is seen with calorie restriction alone.

Other links

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=15672116&query_hl=3&itool=pubmed_docsum

Avant labs discussion of calcium supplementation (http://www.mindandmuscle.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=2689)

Avant labs promoting milk consumption (http://www.mindandmuscle.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=24529)

Theres so much out there on all the forums to read. I guess this thread isn't very useful; it only tells you that there is conflicting data. If anyone has anything relevant to post here, please do - I'd like to read it.


----

Also, I support the idea that there's more to milk tolerance/intolerance than just lactose digestion. Just be aware of how you feel upon drinking milk and what it does to you, and judge for yourself. I used to drink a litre of milk every day, and was fine with it for a couple of years but then became less and less tolerant of it - now it really ruins me so I don't drink it.

[Ashtar]

People obsessed with 'natural' are idiots. Natural can often be bad for you, and unnatural (meaning man-made, which isn't unnatural since we are part of nature) has the potential to be superior.

It's good sense to be wary of something new (ala newest unnatural/manmade) meaning you test it, which people have done, using science.

To get technical, cheese is pretty unnatural, it's not like other animals are making cheese. Drinking other animal's milk is pretty unnatural too. Drinking milk at all when you're not a baby is pretty unnatural. Cooking is also unnatural. We should all be eating raw beaver flesh.

[Lobo]

Why can't science just create something that has the ideal proportion of nutrients and phytochemicals, good bioavailability, amino acid profile, GI, etc, that requires no preparation and tastes like candy or something?

[jan]

Because people wouldn't buy it. The companies would hype it insanely and raise the price to about $100 per meal-bar.

[Rahf]

Not to mention the natural eaters and the people who ONLY eat clean food. They'd never eat something even remotely comparable with candy :ogre:

[Skilzat85X]

Poop is natural.

[anfeyd]

If Africans knew anything about science they wouldn't be starving to death and dying of AIDS

Actually, Africa is like that mainly due to their socioeconomic circumstances, not so much their medical/scientific knowledge.

[Steve]

And sociology and economics just so happen to be sciences

[Lobo]

Not to mention the natural eaters and the people who ONLY eat clean food. They'd never eat something even remotely comparable with candy :ogre:
Faggots.

[Honken]

So what, then honey wouldn't be natural would it? It's chemically manufactured by bees. If you consume it you will die.

Milk is made from evil cows that wants to take over the world by allowing humans to drink their bacteria-filled-tit-juice a.k.a milk. If you drink it you will die.

Water is full of chemicals, if you drink water you will die.

The air is polluted, if you breathe you will die.

Being in the sun will give you cancer. Let's destroy the sun before it destroys us.

All of the above are very good ideas.

[anfeyd]

And sociology and economics just so happen to be sciences

Science your anus.

[540Ninja]

Actually "anfeyd" , Steve is right, socioeconomics is a science. As for Whey, it's good, and its "natural enough for me.

[rock_ten]

So what, then honey wouldn't be natural would it? It's chemically manufactured by bees. If you consume it you will die.

Bee's would be considered 'natural' by most reasonable understandings of the word and so would honey.

Milk is made from evil cows that wants to take over the world by allowing humans to drink their bacteria-filled-tit-juice a.k.a milk. If you drink it you will die.

If cows are trying to loosen man's rule over the world by providing us with milk then they aren't doing a very good job, are they - and tbh I think we'd have noticed them having a greater intelligence than they seem to.

Water is full of chemicals, if you drink water you will die.

Yes water is full of chemicals. Both in the sense of everything being chemical and also the way a lay person might mean as in undesirable chemically-chemicals and pollutants.


The air is polluted, if you breathe you will die.

I agree that the air is polluted.

For all the above, you will die after experiencing them, as you say, but only because everyone dies at some point. There's not neccessarily a causal relationship.

Being in the sun will give you cancer. Let's destroy the sun before it destroys us.

This one doesn't make much sense - firstly its wrong to say that "being in the sun will give you cancer". It has been linked with skin cancer and most likely can cause it, but never for certain. Actually I suspect the popular gayness about the sun being so dangerous is mostly bullshit, I'll never use sun creams again and wouldn't put them on my child. Also, I bet we are more suceptable to skin damage from the sun because of our lifestyles being shit in other ways and having generally crap bodies. And presumably you're joking about destroying the sun - haha :good:.

All of the above are very good ideas.

_____

[compleks]

Shut the hell up rock_ten.

You're either a complete idiot for taking things so literally, and responding as such.

Or you're a complete idiot for using the same format of 'humor' in every one of your posts. All while failing to realise that it is neither funny, nor clever.

[DeeJay]

is vagina natural to eat?

[rock_ten]

Shut the hell up rock_ten.

You're either a complete idiot for taking things so literally, and responding as such.

Or you're a complete idiot for using the same format of 'humor' in every one of your posts. All while failing to realise that it is neither funny, nor clever.


??? I hardly ever make jokes in my posts. Maybe I didn't read the rest of the thread propely, did I miss something that makes my post redundant?

[compleks]

Your gimmicky e-persona is running very thin.

[frankinstine]

Poop is natural.

mmmm. chocolate rain.

[frankinstine]

Science your anus.

that sounds like an awsome pbs show.

??? I hardly ever make jokes in my posts. Maybe I didn't read the rest of the thread propely, did I miss something that makes my post redundant?

just my opinion, but i think the point was kinda that none of the stuff you replied to needed any sort of response. it was just to make a point, not an arguement.

[Cully]

Did you have lifestyle changes in China? That can also be a big part in your use of the inhaler.

Well yeah.... I can't go on a months holiday to china and not change my lifestyle. But as far as I could see, There was more dust there, and also I did more exercise... and those 2 are what normally cause my asthma.

Being in the sun will give you cancer. Let's destroy the sun before it destroys us.

I know someone who's allergic to the suns rays.

[Rahf]

Well yeah.... I can't go on a months holiday to china and not change my lifestyle. But as far as I could see, There was more dust there, and also I did more exercise... and those 2 are what normally cause my asthma.



I know someone who's allergic to the suns rays.

Is his name Vlad Tepez?

[tricker_d]

If Africans knew anything about science they wouldn't be starving to death and dying of AIDS

Hahaha.

[rock_ten]

The thing is niggers and other third world fags were doing just fine before we went there and tried to impose our style of society on them. And we've been trying to dig ourselves out of the hole ever since.

[Steve]

Yes of course, before that they were bursting and bubbling of civilization and wonderful standards of living

[Honken]

My post was sarcastic, jesus christ. The whole point of it was to show how silly this natural thing is.

[rock_ten]

Yes of course, before that they were bursting and bubbling of civilization and wonderful standards of living

Nope they were living primitively, but quite successfully AFAIK. Modern third-world conditions don't represent how things were before civilisation. gtg

[alex]

All protein is not the same.

[Steve]

Nope they were living primitively, but quite successfully AFAIK. Modern third-world conditions don't represent how things were before civilisation. gtg

How are things any different than before, ha ha? Did they have hover cars? Was their international trade booming? How was their stock market doing? They were hunters hunting animals then, and they are hunters hunting animals today

[anfeyd]

The thing is niggers and other third world fags were doing just fine before we went there and tried to impose our style of society on them. And we've been trying to dig ourselves out of the hole ever since.


A lot of Africans came to America to make money and they had mad sex with prostitutes and took home STDs to their wives.


By the way, 540ninja I am quite aware of that, which is why my reply post is rather un-serious. I interpreted his original post in a different manner being that he simply put 'science', and people rarely ever refer to sociology and economics as sciences (except Steve because he is smarter than the average bear).

[Steve]

I am an economics major unfortunately

[rock_ten]

How are things any different than before, ha ha? Did they have hover cars? Was their international trade booming? How was their stock market doing? They were hunters hunting animals then, and they are hunters hunting animals today

No hover cars or international trade, and no stock market. They weren't aspiring to a western style of society, just living in their nigger-old tribal ways, which most likely included hunting, as you said. These days the West is (and for the last 200 years or whatever) still trying to force the square peg of a nigger into the round hole of western society, old ways of living are destroyed and now impossible due to different land uses and overpopulation. They're reliant on hand-outs and if they do manage to farm something then its under the control of Big Pharma who kindly provide them with one-time-use seeds, all the fertilisers and chems they "need", and fucking baby formula promoted as superior to breast milk. So they're in debt and all fucked up now. If I was God-Emperor I would consider the option of ceasing all aid to third-world countries, seeing 90% of the population die in a few years and people return to a sustainable way of life.

[frankinstine]

All protein is not the same.

semen protein is best.:smile:

[Rahf]

semen protein is best.:smile:

You seem knowledgeable in that area. Tried it out I take it?

[Ashtar]

Nope they were living primitively, but quite successfully AFAIK. Modern third-world conditions don't represent how things were before civilisation. gtgDefine 'success'. Living primitively believing in a bunch of voodoo and shit isn't really success, it's stupid.

No hover cars or international trade, and no stock market. They weren't aspiring to a western style of society, just living in their nigger-old tribal ways, which most likely included hunting, as you said. These days the West is (and for the last 200 years or whatever) still trying to force the square peg of a nigger into the round hole of western society, old ways of living are destroyed and now impossible due to different land uses and overpopulation. They're reliant on hand-outs and if they do manage to farm something then its under the control of Big Pharma who kindly provide them with one-time-use seeds, all the fertilisers and chems they "need", and fucking baby formula promoted as superior to breast milk. So they're in debt and all fucked up now. If I was God-Emperor I would consider the option of ceasing all aid to third-world countries, seeing 90% of the population die in a few years and people return to a sustainable way of life.Overpopulation is happening because they are gaining our technology faster than their primitive culture can catch up. Since they die so much and had so little food "breed as much as you can" of the old ways made sense. Now it doesn't. But they don't understand that, and they have primitive attachments to continuing their genetic lines (we have this too, sadly) so they fuck irresponsibly. Baby formula is no longer touted as superior to breast milk, though it might be if a mother was very malnourished or not producing any of if her breasts had AIDS.

One-time seeds are fine. It's not as if food that produces seeds is illegal. They know that they're buying one-time seeds and they still buy it. The reason 1-time seeds were made is so they could protect their copywritten GMOs without having them accidentally take over a farmer's crop so they're accused of stealing the seeds. You just can't win with people who hate progress. One-time seeds are amazing.

I do like your idea though, foreign aid is stupid and pointless because the AID gets wasted. They get just enough calories in them to go have 10 children who then have mouths to feed and make us feel guilty all over again because they did nothing to deserve it, but since we let their parents raise them they live the same way and create the same problems. Foreign aid should be discontinued, if you want to help kids in Africa you should adopt them and bring them to live with you in your home country, that's IT.

Actually, Africa is like that mainly due to their socioeconomic circumstances, not so much their medical/scientific knowledge.Maybe if they had more science they could use it to make money and thus solve the problem. They cause each other.

[rock_ten]

Define 'success'. Living primitively believing in a bunch of voodoo and shit isn't really success, it's stupid.

You apparently define success of a culture as 'similarity to western society' or something along those lines? I know the immidiate reaction is to think about success and progress meaning increasing dominance/destruction of nature and increasing consumption of raw materials and production of shit - which basically is the modern idea of the word. I would suggest that progress/success should be more to do with 'quality of life' and, yea, "happiness" whatever that is. As it happens, I don't see that modern society acknowledges those as valid goals. Technological innovation doesn't seem to lead to much net benefit to us, but its apparently some very strong human drive - invent just for invention's sake.


Overpopulation is happening because they are gaining our technology faster than their primitive culture can catch up. ...

What kinds of technology, are you talking about food production shit?


One-time seeds are fine. It's not as if food that produces seeds is illegal. They know that they're buying one-time seeds and they still buy it. The reason 1-time seeds were made is so they could protect their copywritten GMOs without having them accidentally take over a farmer's crop so they're accused of stealing the seeds.

It isn't a sustainable way to live and grow crops, by definition, and it keeps them all in the pockets of big pharma. Perhaps its the only way to feed their overpopulated town - in that case we come back to the idea of population control :/

[Ashtar]

Not really, I can think of plenty of fictional cultures better than the western one. I define a culture as successful if it has good science and sees reality as it really is. Western society still has a lot of flaws with that, but has still produced high technology and high science, it has been able to nurture that.

I care more about length of life than quality or happiness. If you live long enough, you can continue to refine the sciences, and use them to create quality and happiness later. Quality and happiness are irrelevant if you die. That's why I don't like nature preservation movements that involve blocking progress. It's great to save the environment, but kind of pointless if we're not around to benefit from it.

Don't say "what about the kids" either, because if we instill this forced selflessness onto them then they'll die to and they might not want to either. I won't punish my grandkids for not wanting to be a good boy and kick the bucket.

Modern society does have quality and happiness as goals. It just has foresight. It is recognized that happiness and quality are fleeting. Entropy and old age set in, and quality is lost. That is why we need science to fix nature's inadequacy. If we can get medicine to give us eternal youth, that would be very quality and very happy.

The reason technology has had some drawbacks is that it is still in its infancy and being refined, and also because its progress has been driven by very base human urges, money is being spent on the wrong thing like weapons. This is unfortunately a step we need to go through I guess until we can get it out of our systems and come to the understanding that it is dumbass. I would argue that technology has increased the quality of life in a lot of ways critics of it refuse to recognize.

I'm guessing food production shit, yeah. Basically whatever is causing them to starve. Starvation is bad. If you're not certain you can feed all the kids you have, you shouldn't be having them. Parents in Africa often don't care, they want to have kids so they can make them their slaves to work on farms or sell them into the sex trade or have them go kill their enemies.

Big Pharma did not create seedless crops to keep people in their pockets, they did it because farmers were stealing their GMO seeds and saying "oh it dropped off a truck by accident or they purposefully put it in our field and now they're suing us for growing their crops without a license". With seedless crops, it isn't a problem anymore. Even if farmers steal their GMO seeds and use it without a license, they'll die after a generation.

Basically farmers were being bitches so big pharma cock-blocked em. Plus now you don't have to worry about choking on watermelon seeds. It is win for all.

It's not like you can't buy plants that give seeds in africa. You can. They should buy them if they want to grow their own later.

[Swartz]

PENIS

[Rahf]

Swartz has made the most point in this page. Not that I bothered to read the rest. :tongue:

[rock_ten]

Not really, I can think of plenty of fictional cultures better than the western one. I define a culture as successful if it has good science and sees reality as it really is. Western society still has a lot of flaws with that, but has still produced high technology and high science, it has been able to nurture that.

What kind of fictional societies make you hard? I probably won't have heard of them, actually.

I find the sentence about science and reality to be somehow circular logic. That our modern science is the one true way of looking at things because science shows those things to be true? I'm cool with modern science, scientific method, and what it does and doesn't recognise as possible. But I don't think it is the only way to credibily look at or study this, whatever it is. It is conceivable that a completely different approach to 'science' and examination could exist. Indeed, it has, religion-based shit and systems of beliefs that were in power before our modern style of science. Back then, scientists were burned at the stake and these days opponents of it are (figuratively). BTW that historical comparison isn't meant as evidence for modern science being a bit gay - just to demonstrate the idea.

I care more about length of life than quality or happiness. If you live long enough, you can continue to refine the sciences, and use them to create quality and happiness later. Quality and happiness are irrelevant if you die. That's why I don't like nature preservation movements that involve blocking progress. It's great to save the environment, but kind of pointless if we're not around to benefit from it.

I can't think of any conservation movements that would block progress to such an extent for us to "not be around to benefit from it", i.e. reduce our lifespan or something.


Modern society does have quality and happiness as goals. It just has foresight. It is recognized that happiness and quality are fleeting. Entropy and old age set in, and quality is lost. That is why we need science to fix nature's inadequacy. If we can get medicine to give us eternal youth, that would be very quality and very happy.

This is unfortunately a step we need to go through I guess until we can get it out of our systems and come to the understanding that it is dumbass.

Yea, this is indeed a dirty time, though. I don't know if it requires further technological inovation to change how everything is done, or if human nature will always make whatever level of technology we own into wet gay.

Parents in Africa often don't care, they want to have kids so they can make them their slaves to work on farms or sell them into the sex trade or have them go kill their enemies.

Fucking niggers.


Basically farmers were being bitches so big pharma cock-blocked em. Plus now you don't have to worry about choking on watermelon seeds. It is win for all.

Fucking seeds.

______

[Cully]

This is one thread I'm never gonna read... Far too much here.

Is his name Vlad Tepez?

Close.... William

[Ashtar]

I don't know, I can't really remember, probably some society in an RPG or a SciFi or something. Like Star Trek, or the Ancients in Stargate. Nothing's perfect, it's just a general idea of how things might be better.

Science is the only way of looking at things. It relies on logic and is not as biased by emotion. It holds things accountable. Anyone who thinks other methods are superior to science are probably not recognizing that they can be part of science, or are thinking illogically based on faith/emotion or something.

Rock_ten, there are some really extreme conservation movements out there. Like stopping using fuel entirely and driving up the cost of power and so forth. Obviously they don't get much attention and the less extreme movements get more attention. I'm all for responsibly limiting progress, but only if everyone agrees on it (ie China and Iran better do it too, otherwise it upsets world power levels) and only if it doesn't limit science progress. Indeed, if we stopped wasting money on so much stupid shit it would probably far offset any setbacks conservation might make.

Humanity has many natures, we just have to nurture the better ones and suppress the worse ones. Technology will help, but so will philosophy. The reason I want better tech is I believe it holds the key to spreading good philosophies at a higher rate. If people communicate more, and in the right way, and value intelligence and learning and stuff, they should hopefully adapt better philosophies.

Seeds...

[rock_ten]

Science is the only way of looking at things. It relies on logic and is not as biased by emotion. It holds things accountable. Anyone who thinks other methods are superior to science are probably not recognizing that they can be part of science, or are thinking illogically based on faith/emotion or something.

hmm, I find that to be quite illogical but I can't explain why.

What are you meaning by "science", anyway? Give examples of what is and is not included in science, or you could say - acceptable and unacceptable ways of looking at the universe.

[aideni]

So what's the best milk to drink(if any)?

[Swartz]

Goat milk.

[aideni]

For Serious?Or are you just using my vulnerability for your amusement?:worry:
I currently have organic whole milk,How good is that?

[cepopeye]

Whey is an alternative for protein. It is better if you could get a natural source of protein but when you can't, use whey. There is nothing wrong with that.

hahaha what? how horribly misinformed. first, whey is a natural source of protein derived from milk. Second, if by natural you mean meat or whole soybeans etc. the problem is that you get large amounts of fat and carbs where with whey or other pure protien products, you idealy isolate the protiens and don't waste you're protien intake intaking high amounts of carbs and fats too. This is the difference between a good protien supplement and a bad. Muscle Milk tastes AMAZING, but its horribly fatty and sugary, pure whey tastes awful, but its intensely healthy for the simple reason that it is pure protien and allows for exact calculations of your dietary intake. ussually in a supplement its hard to even get "pure" because its next to impossible to drin flavor wise so they can't sell it, but ideally the flavor is only there for you to be able to choke it down, not to full on enjoy it as with muscle milk, and ussually in the process of adding whatever they have to to make the whey palletable you should see whatother nutrition suh as vitamins etc. is bundled into the supplement

[anfeyd]

For Serious?Or are you just using my vulnerability for your amusement?:worry:
I currently have organic whole milk,How good is that?

Organic food is basically a big hoax.

[aideni]

Damn man!:bad:i didn't think too much of it anyway,full of chemicals and shit,looks like goat milk for me then,is it similar in taste?

[Swartz]

I used your vunerablility for my amusement, yes.

[Rahf]

Damn man!:bad:i didn't think too much of it anyway,full of chemicals and shit,looks like goat milk for me then,is it similar in taste?

From what I've heard, goat's milk tastes awful. Now that is a subjective one of course but generally people don't like the taste of it.

[jan]

Stop mixing the L's, Swartz!

[anfeyd]

Just drink cow's milk.

[Ashtar]

hmm, I find that to be quite illogical but I can't explain why.

What are you meaning by "science", anyway? Give examples of what is and is not included in science, or you could say - acceptable and unacceptable ways of looking at the universe.I'm not sure what you mean. Science is constantly changing as it adapts to new knowledge that there is adequate evidence for. It can include anything. The problem being, you have to demonstrate it to ascertain it is not just fantasy.

[CakeNcream]

Whey is good, but you are making it out to be a godsend. it is indisputably better to consume whole foods, ie. Meat, eggs. then whey protein. whey is just a fast acting, convenient way to get quality protein postworkout and whenever else you may need it. but if given the option, you should take the whole foods.

[Steve]

Organic but pasteurized, reduced-fat cow's milk is "best"

If you are living off an expense account

[alpha7158]

Why can't science just create something that has the ideal proportion of nutrients and phytochemicals, good bioavailability, amino acid profile, GI, etc, that requires no preparation and tastes like candy or something?
You can buy space food bars which are sort of like that..

[rwm]

Today I was talking to a kid from Africa some where and he was ripped out of his mind. We started talking about weight lifting, body building and stuff and he noticed I was drinking whey protein. He told me that he doesn't because it's not "natural" and that the material it supplies the muscles so that they don't stay developed for as long. I didn't really believe him, so I was wondering if anyone knows more about this, and if I should drink whey at all.

He just doesnt want you to eat it because he wants it since he has not eaten a proper meal in his life because his insufficient parents are wankers.

[Ashtar]

Organic milk is stupid. I hate the word 'organic' in foods, it doesn't mean anything.