Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Does steaming milk negatively affect the nutritional value of milk?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Journeyman View Post
    The Health industry might not be a good one to use as a comparison of 'evidence based' methodology and provision. There are many, many drugs and practices that are done for profit margins rather than results and it ain't getting any better. SSRI's are one entire class of drugs being commonly prescribed in spite of the evidence the side effects and social results are much worse than the reasons they are prescribed. For those interested in scaring yourself, check out Index to SSRI Stories
    That's one that you might want to hold off on commenting on from an armchair position. Antidepressants are overprescribed, it seems, but they can help people, no doubt. Their side-effects can be intensely negative and outweigh the benefits they provide (which for some is nil). That is not the same thing as saying their side-effects "are" worse than the conditions they treat.

    Psychology is an easy target as far as medicine goes because it's still not easily measurable/defineable in a lot of areas.


    And I have met a number of chiros who I think should be barred from practice but I have also met some who go close to the 'miracle worker' classification - do we condemn all Doctors because Dr Death killed a few people?
    I'm sure that some chiropractors are very good at what they do (which is provide chiropractic adjustments). Thinking that people should take your word for silly claims regarding nutritional biochemistry because your Dad is a chriopractor is a bit ridiculous.

    If I were to condemn chiropractic as a whole, it would be because its fundamental concepts are rooted in dogmatic pseudoscience. It's closer to faith healing than medicine as far as I'm concerned.

    As for milk, I haven't really liked it much since they stopped allowing local farmers to make it available to people who took containers to the farm. And homogenising didn't improve matters for me, but the final straw was the plastic containers and the taste they give to the milk. To me, what they do to milk kills it - the enzymes for example that used to come along with a glass of milk get destroyed in the processing so it is now just dead calcium liquid.
    Albeit packed with quality carbohydrates, fats and complete proteins. :P

    I find it interesting to look at the vast increase in lactose intolerance and the milk that is triggering it. I come from a generation where milk was provided every morning at school as well as delivered to the home, and I was a milk monitor at Primary school - (I was big enough to carry the crates ) I think there was one person in the school who was not allowed milk. Now it's common.
    Yeah, it's weird, and that goes for allergens in general (is lactose intolerance considered an allergic reaction or is it just an inability to process something?)

    Comment


    • #17
      The milk we get these days is not the milk we got 50 years ago. Many years ago I worked in the food industry as a food laboratory technician, its quite frightening what we can do with molecules to make them into products for human consumption.

      I could go on and on about psychotropic medication, I see what it can do to people every day and I am glad I don't need them.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by smokey View Post
        The milk we get these days is not the milk we got 50 years ago.
        Thank goodness for that, I guess if you have it in your head that todays milk products are unsafe or, you dislike the taste etc, the choice is easy, don't consume them.
        It's irresponsible to attempt to scare the begeejus out of people re dairy products (an important source of nutrition for many people) simply because of personal prejudice or mistaken beliefs.

        Comment


        • #19
          Not wanting to specifically have a go at alexander or his father here.

          The Australian Chiropractic industry is in crisis in this country. It is at a crossroads as to whether it wants to be based on woo-woo quackery or physiology based spinal experts (ie more or less physio's )

          Until the CAA stamps out, or rather stops leading it's members into being major distributors of Anti-vax misinformation, it can have no scientific credibility.

          Chiropractors make up by far the biggest professional group who are members of the Anti Vaccination Network. In this manner they misuse the term "Dr" as every other medical association and real doctor in the country is trying their hardest to get the vaccination message out there.

          I could go on but I'll reign myself in..

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Yelta View Post
            Thank goodness for that, I guess if you have it in your head that todays milk products are unsafe or, you dislike the taste etc, the choice is easy, don't consume them.
            It's irresponsible to attempt to scare the begeejus out of people re dairy products (an important source of nutrition for many people) simply because of personal prejudice or mistaken beliefs.
            Yelta, I thought this forum was for people to express their views?

            Seriously, everyone has an opinion and the right to express it, and good people have died for your right to express yours. I admire alexander and anyone else who is brave enough to go on a forum and state his opinion as he has despite the avalanche of negativity and impolite comments he has received.

            Ease up guys, its just a coffee forum.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by smokey View Post
              Yelta, I thought this forum was for people to express their views?
              It is, and I've just expressed mine.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by alexander View Post
                Sorry I cant quote the scientific evidence but My father is a Chiropractor and has been for 30+ years and has done countless professional courses on health and nutrition and how chiropractors can have a positive influence on patient health. and he drilled in to me the warnings that PHD qualified presenters taught him. I believe that this information that I posted is also common knowledge in the wellness and nutrition circles.
                Enough said. Chiropractors are borderline quacks anyway, based mostly on pseudo-science and unverified claims of efficacy. The therapeutic benefit of chiropractic treatments is the same as an manual manipulation of the body: ie, you'd do just as well getting a massage. Moreover, some practices promoted by chiropractors is actually dangerous and potentially harmful.

                Bring in the peer-reviewed science please.

                /rant

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Dragunov21 View Post
                  That's one that you might want to hold off on commenting on from an armchair position. Antidepressants are overprescribed, it seems, but they can help people, no doubt. Their side-effects can be intensely negative and outweigh the benefits they provide (which for some is nil). That is not the same thing as saying their side-effects "are" worse than the conditions they treat.
                  *grins* Did you read the link?
                  Originally posted by Dragunov21 View Post
                  Psychology is an easy target as far as medicine goes because it's still not easily measurable/defineable in a lot of areas.
                  In Science that normally means you're running with the wrong paradigm. Nothing will change or get easier in the field until they change that.
                  Originally posted by Dragunov21 View Post
                  I'm sure that some chiropractors are very good at what they do (which is provide chiropractic adjustments). Thinking that people should take your word for silly claims regarding nutritional biochemistry because your Dad is a chriopractor is a bit ridiculous.
                  Agreed. But our society does a lot of that kind of thing. And we don't know, but his father might have Chiro on the shingle but have looked into nutrition and other fields as adjuncts to his work.
                  Originally posted by Dragunov21 View Post
                  If I were to condemn chiropractic as a whole, it would be because its fundamental concepts are rooted in dogmatic pseudoscience. It's closer to faith healing than medicine as far as I'm concerned.
                  I would suggest maybe looking closer. Good Chiro work is based solidly in physics. It's to do with leverage and physical effects caused due to trauma (physical or mental) or injury. Kinesiology is soundly based in the connective tissue system and understanding how the body functions as a complete system.

                  Don't throw out the field because some effwits see it as a path to riches with the cookie-cutter, 'one-trick-suits-all' approach.
                  Originally posted by Dragunov21 View Post
                  Albeit packed with quality carbohydrates, fats and complete proteins. :P
                  Yeah, it's weird, and that goes for allergens in general (is lactose intolerance considered an allergic reaction or is it just an inability to process something?)
                  Pretty sure it is seen as an inability to process, but that might have changed in 20 years or so. (since I looked into it last) Probably by now it is a 'syndrome' or even a 'disorder.'

                  The point I see is that we now have trouble processing it because we strip out the very things that helped us do so. Live milk doesn't cause an intolerance or we would have seen it all around in the days when kids were being fed milk constantly.

                  The calcium drink they feed us now, even with carbohydrates, fats and complete proteins (although the completness of some of the proteins might be in doubt given the processing methods) is much more difficult to digest and so lots of people are now labelled as lactose intolerant.

                  Note this is just my ideas based on observation and experience. I think checking to see how our modern 'hygiene' is killing us is another of those questions you can't ask and still get funding.

                  I'd love to get some real milk from a farm and try it with my coffee - I wonder how well it would texture? Do we have anyone on site who was a professional barista long enough ago to recall when milk was in bottles and had a couple of inches of cream floating on top until you shook it up?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by timdimdom View Post
                    Yes, milk does have good nutritional value but most of us (especially Asians) have not adapted to milk as an important source of nutrition. cow's milk is meant for cows, and some of us have problems adapting to the sugars in cows milk (lactose intolerance)
                    Lactose intolerance isn't so much because it's cows milk, it's because most mammals, including a lot of humans, lose the ability to process lactose after they have been weaned.
                    Feed a full grown cow enough cows milk and it'll also be intolerant of the lactose.
                    This is why rennet (the enzyme that breaks down milk for cheese making) is commonly made from veal stomachs.

                    As for the OP question - pasteurised milk has already been heat treated, so I doubt reheating it for coffee will do much to the vitamins and minerals contained within. It has already been stripped of any beneficial enzymes.

                    Wikipedia tells me that microfoam is made possible through the denaturing of milk proteins which then better hold gas (air) within the liquid mixture. I can find scientific articles talking about the nutritional effect of denaturing milk at high temperatures, but they are focused on the baby formula industry where the milk is processed at up to 121c and they do cause a substantial loss of vitamins.
                    At coffee temperature with the short duration of heating it should do very little except make the denatured proteins a little quicker to digest.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Journeyman View Post
                      The Health industry might not be a good one to use as a comparison of 'evidence based' methodology and provision. There are many, many drugs and practices that are done for profit margins rather than results and it ain't getting any better. SSRI's are one entire class of drugs being commonly prescribed in spite of the evidence the side effects and social results are much worse than the reasons they are prescribed. For those interested in scaring yourself, check out Index to SSRI Stories
                      I may be mis-reading your comment Journeyman, so perhaps you should qualify it. Maybe you're in a different country, but if you're referring to the non-alternative (Medical) healthcare sector in Australia you're a bit off the mark, there is a very heavy emphasis on evidence based practice in modern medicine, but you'd know this if you worked in the sector. Profit doesn't really feature in the Australian healthcare industry as Medicare determines indications and fees for every consultation and procedure, and is in turn tax funded.

                      I agree that big Pharma is only out to make a buck, but the pharmaceutical benefits scheme (PBS) will only fund medication for which evidence of benefit and a favourable cost-benefit balance exists. Doctors in the public sector therefore have a limited choice of medications for any specified indication, and are subject to frequent audit. None of this is based on profit - no-one in the medical sector makes any profit from medication, therefore no incentive exists to prescribe any particular drug. The PBS also ensures they pay the lowest possible prices for medication, which is why the USA want the PBS scrapped as part of a free trade agreement! Funny that. Attempts in the USA to create a healthcare system (Obamacare) similar to what we have in Aus is exactly what the whole ruckus in the US is currently about.

                      As for the whole SSRI issue (Yawn...) - I am assuming you have a better treatment for depression/anxiety up your sleeve. Please, please, please publish your evidence, we'd love to see evidence for an effective treatment that doesn't have limiting side-effects. All medications have potential side-effects and have to go through several costly trials to prove efficacy and safety, demonising any particular class because of rare, severe adverse events or more common minor side-effects doesn't make any sense.

                      I've really enjoyed this thread up to now, had a really good laugh, it just seems to have gone completely off track. It never ceases to amaze me how many gullible people there are in this world, and the internet hasn't changed anything. There have been quacks and snake oil salesmen as long as we've been human, and they will continue to make their buck as long as humans remain this gullible. It's always worth remembering that the alternative health industry in Aus is a multi-billion $ enterprise, clean profit straight into private pockets without any burden whatsoever to provide any scrap of evidence for efficacy or safety.

                      FWIW I don't believe steaming milk alters its nutritional value in any way, as mentioned by several sensible individuals before, it has already been heat treated and proteins (enzymes ARE proteins BTW) aren't absorbed intact but as amino acids. Almost all of our protein intake is fully cooked anyway, which makes it safer and easier to digest. Most of us definitely don't drink coffee for its nutritional value either, so it's pretty much beside the point. I still stand by my view that if it doesn't have teats it can't make milk. Don't know when last I saw an almond with teats...

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Ah, another one who didn't go read the link... le sigh...

                        This is getting way OT. Depression is far better treated with cleaning up diet and a better lifestyle. We breathe, eat and drink noxious chemicals continuously. As for no pressure to prescribe drugs, I've seen the software Doctors use - every page has adverts targetting the things they are looking at. Palliative care is not a medical model, it is a profit model. 'nuff said.

                        Enzymes might be proteins, but they are catalytic proteins. The are very large molecules that enhance or control chemical reactions, which is why I think they are needed in milk. And I have yet to see anyone else explain why there is a coincidence in timing between the growth of lactose intolerance and the enforced changes we've had to endure in our milk supply. If the dead milk is so good for us, why did the Govt bodies come over so heavy handed in forcing farmers to cease supplying locals? I know in Orbost there was bloody near a revolt over the issue - the locals just didn't like the new milk and that was even before it went into plastic.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Journeyman View Post
                          And I have yet to see anyone else explain why there is a coincidence in timing between the growth of lactose intolerance and the enforced changes we've had to endure in our milk supply.
                          Surely the only coincidence that we are capable of observing is between *diagnosed* lactose intolerance and whatever these changes to our milk supply are?

                          Is there properly controlled epidemiological evidence that links the two? There are thousands of PhD students and post-docs out there looking for a cool topic....hard to believe the idea has been though of....
                          Just sayin...

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            True dat, Barry... but then there are many topics it is academic suicide to tackle. AGW, 2nd Hand smoking, anything that erodes the Relativity schema, (as mentioned above) the vaccination issues, fluoride in water and many more. Once the Political machine moved in on the funding for Science, Science stopped being Science and became justification for funding/tenure.

                            It is difficult enough to get people who have NO vested interest in a subject to look at an holistic view of it, let alone get someone who has been programmed into a view to risk their entire careers (& sometimes lives) on stepping outside the box.

                            And it is exactly that coincidence I am talking about, (between *diagnosed* lactose intolerance and whatever these changes to our milk supp) so I am unsure why you mention it?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Journeyman View Post
                              This is getting way OT. Depression is far better treated with cleaning up diet and a better lifestyle. We breathe, eat and drink noxious chemicals continuously. As for no pressure to prescribe drugs, I've seen the software Doctors use - every page has adverts targetting the things they are looking at. Palliative care is not a medical model, it is a profit model. 'nuff said.
                              Speaking as someone with both family and friends with depression who have at times utilised SSRIs (some with great success, some without), lemme say that that's a very narrow-minded view. These are people who aren't stupid and live better, healthier lifestyles than most. Bit like saying that ritalin is a rort and ADHD is better treated by disciplining your kids.

                              As for palliative care, it, by definition, means "making people comfortable while they die". What exactly are you expecting in the way of a "medical model"?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Journeyman View Post

                                And it is exactly that coincidence I am talking about, (between *diagnosed* lactose intolerance and whatever these changes to our milk supp) so I am unsure why you mention it?
                                I mention it simply because the diagnosed rate of many conditions is increasing with calendar time, as is the treatment that you propose (i.e. the change in milk supply). As more people become aware of the existence of lactose intolerance, it becomes more likely that they will be diagnosed as such.

                                So if the response variable (observed incidence of lactose intolerance) is regressed against a variable that is correlated with the progression of calendar years there is a threat of spurious correlation.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X