Need Milk? Get Yourself A Supercow.

GM OOOO writes "Sydney Morning Herald is reporting the birth of three 'supercows.' Interesting thing here, besides the potential for milk, is the fact this was done via selctive breeding and genetic selection via embryonic implantation -- not adding the gene of a sea cucumber of something to modify it to produce as it does now. Supercows - kinda reminds me of the Mootrix movie now (FEAR)."

Comments

Re:Law of Conservation of Matter/Energy

[miruku]

by 'lactation' they refer to the ammount of months a cow can provide milk for, not as in 'a single sitting'.

It's just a matter of time...

[El]

before they cross bovine and cocoa plant genes, and come up with a cow that gives chocalate milk...

After over 2 years of doctors not being able to tell me why my daughter was congested all the time, I switched her to soy milk, and the problem immediately went away!

Re:I wonder if these will not spread disease

[WTFmonkey]

I'd be more inclined to believe what's in your sig if that site wasn't advocating alternatives that are even worse.

Soy protein is horrible, I repeat, horrible for men. It increases estrogen levels like crazy, and reduces testosterone counts. Tofu suppresses testosterone levels even more effectively than a low-fat diet. (You know why all the guys that hang out in front of health food stores don't look healthy? It's because of low-fat diets. High-fat diets are completely healthy and increase testosterone levels, whereas lowfat diets suppress them). If you're eating tofu and not enough good, old-fashioned fat (mostly from sources such as olive oil, but animal fat is also important) you're going to have chronically suppressed testosterone levels. Along with increased estrogen levels.

Nice breasts, dude.

Next, the site advocates a dairy-free diet. While it's true that pasteurized milk causes (in some people) milk allergies and lactose intolerance, as well as having an astronomical insulin index, milk products like cottage cheese behave entirely differently in your body. Yogurt, for example, has active cultures which are good to the point that they help with both diahrrea and constipation.

Bottom line is that for some people (skinny teenagers and guys (girls, too) trying to bulk up), milk is the ultimate weight-gainer. Good mix of macros. Cheap. For other people, the carb (sugar) content is a bit much. It's way too dependent on body-type and lifestyle to say "Milk sucks."

Re:Need Milk?

[Sasafras]

Given the choice between a 12 year Harvard study of 78,000 women VS the superstitions of "Old-school bodybuilders", I prefer to believe in one more than the other.

Saturated fats are needed by the body, but in amounts way below the amounts in milk, and in combination with healthier fats lacking in milk. Cholesterol is produced by the body when needed, so none in the diet is best.

The bigger problem is that milk is only for babies. When a lactose intolerant adult drinks milk, they get sick, and their intestines become lined with mucous to prevent the absorption of it. A lot of nutrition is lost because of this, including calcium. If you are lactose tolerant, you dont get sick, but you do get the mucous effect. In addition to this, the protien in the milk causes you to lose calcium already in your bones, just like any other type of animal protien.

You can find information about this on plenty of sites other than vegetarian/animal rights sites if you are worried about bias, just do a google search.

Re:Law of Conservation of Matter/Energy

[Bowling Moses]

"I mean, one cow, at this point, when grazing, can clear an entire square mile of pasture and be set for the day. I think."

It's not that bad. I was curious myself since a relative of mine has a small dairy operation (~60 head on ~300 acres, probably less on both). So, from a webpage from a U. Arkansas argonomy class it looks like about 80 acres of pasture will be fine for 60 head of cattle for a month. So we're talking 60x the cattle for 30x the time on 1/8th the land. But the required acreage naturally increases if you're ranching on shitty west Texas desert compared to my relative's dairy farm in Iowa. How much I don't know, I'm not in the cattle business.

Re:Need Milk?

[WTFmonkey]

Given the choice between a 12 year Harvard study of 78,000 women VS the superstitions of "Old-school bodybuilders", I prefer to believe in one more than the other.

Agreed, unless I'm in the bulking phase of preparing for a competition. Then I'll listen to the pros over the scientists.

so none in the diet is best

Dietary cholesterol has been shown to have little or no effect on total cholesterol. See
Reaven GM, et al. "Insulin resistance, dietary cholesterol, and cholesterol concentration in postmenopausal women." Metabolism 2001 May;50(5):594-7
or
Bowman MP, et al. "Effect of dietary fat and cholesterol on plasma lipids and lipoprotein fractions in normolipidemic men." J Nutr 1988 May;118(5):555-60
Saying "none in the diet is best" is kinda silly. While we can synthesize cholesterol (up to a point), we can't generate the rest of the steroid family (including cholesterol, testosterone, the estrogens, progesterone, aldosterone and cortisol) without intake of the "essential fatty acids," hence the name "essential." My point here is that it's much easier to get 'em in decent amount if you're not needlessly worrying about dietary cholesterol.

I agree with your third paragraph, up to a certain point. See Kerstetter JE, O'Brien KO, Insogna KL. "Dietary protein affects intestinal calcium absorption." Am J Clin Nutr 1998 Oct;68(4):859-65 for why a high protein diet may actually increase calcium absorption.

Re:Need Milk?

[Sasafras]

Even if dietary cholesterol has no effect at all on your total cholesterol, it makes no difference. The dietary sources of cholesterol themselves (meat/dairy) are unhealthy for many reasons and have healthy alternatives, and cholesterol can be synthesized by the body when needed. Yes, essential fatty acids are necessary, but cholesterol is not one of them. They are linoleic acid and a-linolenic acid. You can get them in decent amounts without worrying about cholesterol like you said, but the idea that milk or other animal products is a good source for them is ridiculous. Vegetable oils are rich in essential fatty acids, especially but not exclusively hemp and flax oils.

It would be nice if you linked to web pages since I don't go to the library often, but I don't see why it matters if one study found that meat can increase calcium absorption in the intestines when most find that the net effect of animal protien in the diet results in more calcium loss. So you absorb more in the intestines just to pee it out later, is that basically what they said?

Overall I think calcium is overhyped. Cows, horses, elephants, and so many other animals get enough by just eating grass. There is no reason a varied plant based diet in a human would be insufficient. Quoting the article I linked to originally, "American recommendations for calcium intake are high, partly because the meat, salt, tobacco, and physical inactivity of American life leads to overly rapid and unnatural loss of calcium through the kidneys." There really is no need to take calcium suppliments or even worry about calcium as long as you take care of yourself.

Re:Need Milk?

[WTFmonkey]

The "milk" part of dairy I will give you as being unhealthy, you partly convinced me there. But cottage cheese is an excellent source of protein, and your body handles it differently than milk. The active cultures in yogurt are great for you. Dairy, by and large, is good. Meat, even more by and large, is good (you don't see many vegetarian bodybuilders). As far as "healthy alternatives," I hope you don't mean soy products. I hope that what you meant to say was "red meat," to which I agree that rib and liver meat should be eaten in small amounts, but eat the rest of the cow in one sitting, if you want. Poultry and (fatty) fish are good alternatives to red meat. But that's offtopic.

Sorry about not linking to webpages, but I'm pretty sure that the you can't read the scientific journals online without a subscription anyways-- I attend SDSU and so can read whatever journals look interesting in between classes. I didn't bother looking for supporting web sites because I think the peer review that happens in journals is important.

Basically, I think we've shown two things here. First, that you can find independent, well-researched, scientific publications to back any claim. Second, it varies so much by person that you really need to find what works for you.

Milk works for me: It's a cheap source of protein, I can tolerate lactose, and the fact that it's sugar doesn't bother me since I "budget" for it in my diet. I'm in good shape, and I drink lots of milk. Some people would get fat drinking it, some people just don't like it, some people are worried about contaminants, other people have other reasons. Bottom line is, do what works for you personally.

I take a calcium carbonate (TUMS, basically)/potassium supplement because I like what studies say about its role in maintaining body composition. Call it an experiment. I'll let you know how it goes in a few months. I agree that bone density is adequately maintained solely through weight lifting (which is the best way to "take care of yourself" IMO) and that calcium supplementing is not necessary for that purpose. Pretty soon, I'll know whether this "works" for me too. And that's really the whole point, isn't it? To figure out what makes you look good naked, and how get there, and how to maintain it. Different people, different requirements.