Thanks for your response, Jeannine. Since Jeannine is commenting on 
what I wrote, I will add some comments below.

Jeannine Jacobs wrote:
>So, the answer to this problem in my eyes would be to return to the 
>diet of our ancestors... starch-based, whole foods, Vegan diet, 
>right?

No, our ancestors were not vegan, but had a basically vegetarian diet 
with occasional meat. We have a specialised transporter in the gut 
purely for haem iron (iron in flesh meat and blood), so this supports 
the idea that we are meant to eat meat. Our ancestors were 
hunter/gatherers, so they hunted animals to eat. However, it is 
obviously possible to have a healthy diet as a vegan - and I 
acknowledge that the vast majority of vegans are much healthier than 
most people following the typical Western omnivorous diet.

>  Ever hear of Dr. McDougall?  He (as well as others; Barnard, 
>Fuhrman, Ornish, etc...) have done a tone of research on the human 
>diet and have found that the rich western diet is really horrible 
>for our bodies and is what is causing so much illness in our society.

I certainly agree there!

>   Cow's milk is not the answer to this problem.

I didn't say it was the answer to the problem of poor Western diets 
and chronic disease.

>   The addition of all of the extra protein in cow's milk causes our 
>bodies to leach calcium from our bones and we end up with weaker 
>bones.

That is not true. I agree that it is a fact that protein intake is 
related to calcium loss, but not so great as to 'leach calcium from 
our bones' when consuming cow-milk products, because of the high 
calcium content in these foods. The protein content of milk is 
relatively low.

>   There isn't one study out there, that I am aware of, that proves 
>that adding cow's milk to a diet improves calcium absorption or the 
>density of bones (Even the ones funded by the dairy industry).

They are there. I don't have access to the university library's 
search facilities at the moment (as I have graduated but not yet 
enrolled into the post-graduate course) but one that one of our 
lecturers was a co-author for is:

Prince R, Devine A, Dick I, Criddle A, Kerr D, Kent N, Price R, 
Randel A. 'The effects of calcium supplementation (milk powder or 
tablets) and exercise on bone density in postmenopausal women.' 
Journal of Bone and Mineral Research 1995; 10:1068-75

In this study, they found that milk powder and supplemental calcium 
tablets were equally effective in preventing bone density loss in 
postmenopausal women. Exercise actually *increased* the density 
again. In the 'normal' situation in Western countries, postmenopausal 
women lose bone density at a significant rate due to withdrawal of 
oestrogen.

You also have to appreciate that the body's calcium status is very 
complex, and there are lots of factors that affect bone density, and 
calcium absorption and loss. It is not a simple matter of adding in 
what you eat and it going to the bones and some getting lost at 
random. The body has very tight and elegant controls on calcium in 
the blood and tissues (as well as absorption and loss) as the 
consequences of the wrong concentrations would be devastating. The 
bones, as bone density, are simply the stores - or the 'bank'.

>  Cow's milk is made for baby cows... now that's simple.

Yes, and I agree that it is not suitable for baby humans, or babies 
of any other animal species for that matter - as a *complete* food, 
which is what species-specific milk is meant to be for babies. 
However, you could say the same about any food. Veges grow to 
maintain their species and grow new plants, not to feed us. Fruits, 
nuts and seeds grow on plants to begin the next generation of plants, 
not to feed us. Most actually have evolved toxins and inhibitors to 
protect themselves from extinction by being 'eaten out', and animal 
(including human) body systems have evolved to cope with these. All 
very symbiotic over time. Overwhelming these systems by eating too 
much of one food to the exclusion of others is one way to see one 
type of food intolerance. Cow milk is just another biological 
substance that we can collect that has a good range of nutrients in 
it. No more, no less. It is not a *complete* food for anything but a 
calf.

I get the impression that there is a dichotomy of opinions in which 
cow milk is either the 'perfect' food or a 'bad' food. I don't think 
it is either. It is simply one of a huge range of foods that humans 
consume for some of the nutrients we need. Maybe some worship it too 
much and believe it is the perfect complete food. Perhaps this is 
where the industry has promoted this idea, for monetary gain. It is 
just one food out of many that are consumed by different people in 
different parts of the world. It just happens to be culturally 
acceptable in Western countries - or any countries with a significant 
portion of their population derived from Northern European ancestry 
with widespread persistence of activity of the lactase gene 
throughout life (one exception is the Massai (sp?) in Africa - they 
came about drinking cow milk from a different ancestral direction). 
Let's get this into perspective and take the emotion out of it. 
Famous quote: 'There are no bad foods, only bad diets'.

Joy
-- 
******************************************************************
Joy Anderson B.Sc.(Zoology) Dip.Ed. Grad.Dip.Med.Tech. B.Sc.(Nutrition) IBCLC
Australian Breastfeeding Association counsellor
Perth, Western Australia.   mailto:[log in to unmask]
******************************************************************

             ***********************************************

Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]
Mail all list management commands to: [log in to unmask]
COMMANDS:
1. To temporarily stop your subscription write in the body of an email: set lactnet nomail
2. To start it again: set lactnet mail
3. To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
4. To get a comprehensive list of rules and directions: get lactnet welcome