The Milk Issue: Low-fat or the NT way?

[DogwoodMama]

I am so confused about this issue. :/ All the "mainstream" research points towards consuming dairy in low-fat or fat-free forms. BUT this is a relatively *new* way to consume dairy, right? And then there is the NT/Makers way, which as I understand it, encourages consumption of raw milk, and yogurt, kefir, etc, presumably in full-fat forms.

So, why the HUGE difference of opionion here? I'm so confused. Please help me think through this.

[2sunshines]

From what I've heard, the contents of the fat in raw organic milk is completely different than the contents of the fat in unpasteurized, non-organic, hormonally enhanced milk. So they are not even comparable to a degree.

It's kind of similar to the difference between organic and non-organic eggs. Dr. Mercola doesn't even consider them the same foods. Organic eggs are full of omega 3 whereas non-organic eggs have none.

So similarly, the fat in raw milk contains many nutrients and other stuff that makes it "good fat."

I really don't know what I'm talking about. :) I have just been told and read tidbits here and there... But here are my disorganized thoughts on the issue, hoping someone else here is more educated and can explain further.

[DogwoodMama]

So are there any benefits to low-fat, pasteurized dairy products at all? Do we really absorb any nutrients or calcium from it?

I guess I'm confused why if it's true raw milk, etc are better, why the main places I read this are "alternative" sources. Why isn't the "mainstream" & academic medical & nutrition community talking about this? Why do they keep pushing low-fat dairy? (I assume in part the dairy industry, but don't tthey benefit *however* you consume it?)

[Katigre]

We don't drink organic milk and we drink non-fat/1%. A major reason for us is the toxins (can't remember the name of them right now...but they're really bad for you) are stored in the fat of mammals--so by consuming low/non-fat versions we're able to avoid at least some 'bad' stuff.

(These compounds are also the things that are turning up in breastmilk b/c of environmental toxins).

[cobluegirl]

So are there any benefits to low-fat, pasteurized dairy products at all? Do we really absorb any nutrients or calcium from it?

I guess I'm confused why if it's true raw milk, etc are better, why the main places I read this are "alternative" sources. Why isn't the "mainstream" & academic medical & nutrition community talking about this? Why do they keep pushing low-fat dairy? (I assume in part the dairy industry, but don't tthey benefit *however* you consume it?)


because they don't care and make more money...have you read www.notmilk.com? it is pretty gross....read that then got to www.realmilk.com ....the latter if I have the url right is the weston a price one.....

[RealLifeMama]

From what I've heard, the contents of the fat in raw organic milk is completely different than the contents of the fat in unpasteurized, non-organic, hormonally enhanced milk. So they are not even comparable to a degree.


Not to be a stickler, but non raw milk is pasteurized. I know it's probably a typo, but I wanted to clear up any confusion others might have.


I liken this issue to when the food pyramid had like 6-11 "bread, pasta, and grain" servings, and they included foam rubber white bread. :rolleyes

[mommyto2]

Ok, dredging up an old post because we just started drinking raw milk coming from pastuerized organic skim. I'm reading a book "The Untold Story of Milk" by Ron Schmid, ND. Sally Fallon has a foreword in the book. It's very interesting so far.

I agree with the OP in how confusing it is. In the not so distant past I was always under the belief that fat is bad, bad, bad without regard to the source and only now are mainstream ideas coming out about "good" fats. But of course none of those include dairy products which I think is because the fats coming from the conventional sources of dairy ARE bad for you.

As an aside, kefir made with raw milk is amazing. Even compared to organic milk. :-)

[Mother Duck]

From my research, it's the homogonization process that makes the "fat" in milk "bad fat" it breaks up the particals of fat so they can pass through the lining of the stomach into the body where they remain unprocessed leading to calcification of the arteries. If you *have* to drink store bought milk the *best* of the bad is the full fat/non homoganized type (silver top here in Oz and in NZ). The type that has the cream sitting on the top :)

There is also the question of whether A1 milk is good at all as it is said to contribute to diabetes whereas A2 milk does not. Most milk is A1 - except milk from Jersey or Guernsey cows, and sheep and goats which is naturally A2 milk.

[mommyto2]

The fats in conventional dairy are also bad because the fat is where a large part of the toxins associated with the industry accumulate. Ugh, just the thought of "regular" milk from the store makes me :sick now.

[cobluegirl]

Ok, dredging up an old post because we just started drinking raw milk coming from pastuerized organic skim. I'm reading a book "The Untold Story of Milk" by Ron Schmid, ND. Sally Fallon has a foreword in the book. It's very interesting so far.

I agree with the OP in how confusing it is. In the not so distant past I was always under the belief that fat is bad, bad, bad without regard to the source and only now are mainstream ideas coming out about "good" fats. But of course none of those include dairy products which I think is because the fats coming from the conventional sources of dairy ARE bad for you.

As an aside, kefir made with raw milk is amazing. Even compared to organic milk. :-)
keep us updated on the book...it is on my want list...hehe

[Mother Duck]

The fats in conventional dairy are also bad because the fat is where a large part of the toxins associated with the industry accumulate. Ugh, just the thought of "regular" milk from the store makes me :sick now.


I forgot to say that in NOT homogenized milk the fat particles just pass straight through your system :)

[mommyto2]

Yes, I will let you know about the book. So far it is really interesting, like how before pasteurization there were city cows kept in "barns" attached to whiskey distilleries and fed the "slop" that was the waste from the whiskey production. This was the milk many people in the city drank unless they specifically got it from the country. You can imagine how healthy that must have been :rolleyes and is one of the beginnings of giving raw milk a bad name.

And OT Rachael, I wanted to give you a :hugheart for your :rose.

[Chris3jam]

So are there any benefits to low-fat, pasteurized dairy products at all? Do we really absorb any nutrients or calcium from it?

I guess I'm confused why if it's true raw milk, etc are better, why the main places I read this are "alternative" sources. Why isn't the "mainstream" & academic medical & nutrition community talking about this?

Yes, you do absorb some nutrients. . . kind of on the same level you absorb from white bread. I laugh, though, when I see 'fat-free', and fortified with vit A and D. :laughtears Vit. A and D are fat-soluble. . .they need fats for you to absorb them. And the medical community actually does know about it. . .Johns Hopkins (if I remember right) uses raw goat milk to treat a lot of physical problems.

On the other hand, pasteurization, when it 'came out', actually saved the lives of thousands of children. Children were dying due to the contamination of the raw milk. . but that's the point. Raw milk is very good for you. . . .unless it gets contaminated. All of these processes of preserving food that we see now as compromising the nutritional value of that food, actually helped to save thousands of lives. . .back in the day when they were more ignorant of the role of sanitation. You don't get good, nutritional food from a contaminated or sick source. A person who would eat a vegetable that, say, had animal feces on it (very common), could die from the contamination, even when rinsed off. People died of botulism regularly, due to poorly processed goods (enter, the nitrates and nitrites). Sugar was billed as the most pure food available when they discovered how to process it. It eliminated the botulism that one can get pretty easily from wild honey; it was convenient, and it was cheap and easy. Sugar also prohibits the growth of bacteria. . good or bad, and, therefore, was used liberally when processing foods. Salt was much more expensive. . .and, well, fruit preserves don't exactly taste as nice! :) Chemical fertilizers and pesticides, while being cheaper, so the average Joe farmer could actually afford it, also eliminated a lot of the guess-work out of growing crops. Yes, growing plant food stuffs is still reliant upon the weather, but now farmers don't have to look at their whole field of crops being wiped out by grasshoppers, worms, etc. (therefore, destroying their livelihood and not being able to provide for, sometimes, the whole community). The age of antibiotics and other medicines eliminated certain farmers from their herds being completely destroyed by 'plagues' (again, destroying their livelihood and not being able to provide for, sometimes, the whole community). It's a trade-off. And now, since we've gotten into this 'rut', it's a matter of livelihood in the other direction. . .if we eliminate the business of pasteurization, chemical process, etc., we eliminate many, many jobs -- the jobs of people who rely on those jobs to feed their families.

I used to be pretty militant about organic, fresh, raw, etc. and then mellowed out. . .I talked to Grandma once, in my ever-so-slightly school-teacher voice about food. . .and she said, "When you're a family of 17, and there is literally no food in the house, you are grateful to God for every single piece of 'technology' you can get that will put that food on the table. And you don't ask if it's organic. . .you're just grateful you've got something to put in your belly!" -- or something like that.

It's a trade-off. . .. .

(and sorry this sounds so . . . disjointed. . . it's too early yet to think!)

[BearyBlessed]

I just wanted to mention for the OP, that I usually skim most of the cream off my raw milk. I am getting used to more cream, but it's a slow process. And the cream I can use to make Alfredo :yum or butter or anything else that I need cream for. So, the milk and the cream have different uses for me. :shrug