Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When you follow up your workout with a snack and use milk do you notice a difference in your body based on the fat % of the milk?
Last time I was using milk i was going with 2% or soy. And then when I found my stomach liked whole milk better I just made the switch in my daily diet to that. So recrently using milk again as a follow up snack I felt the whole milk wiped out that tight soreness you get much better than the 2% or the soy. But the soy with DHA added was almost as good as the whole.
What gives? Anyone else experience this? Or with other snack type follow ups where its essentially the same thing but a small variation such as fat made a difference?
Milk is fine. It improved my skin and muscle tone. So it does work for me. I am not over thinking anything. You should be aware of how your body reacts to any food personally. I asked if anyone else noticed this. I actually don't really buy soy anymore because the whole cow milk feels better in my system. I thought it was the DHA too though on the soy. Almond milk does go well too as far as digestion goes. I should try that as follow up next. I like eating sardines for fish oil. Less homework than finding a good fish oil low in mercury. Good fish oil seems to be expensive.
Why would milk be bad for you? I guess it depends on the type of working out you are doing and your goals, but I have seen a few studies that show chocolate milk after a workout is one of the best things you can take for recovery and muscle building.
What scientists? I see an article by a group promoting their own idea of a utopian diet or lifestyle referencing their own articles and articles of other similar organizations without any credible peer review.
There are several issues around milk. One is only of Northern European ancenstry (Irish, Scandinavians, Russians, etc) can fully tolerate milk. This isn't a problem with milk, but rather a problem for people who can't tolerate the lactose, proteins, or even the fat content in milk. Specific food in tolerances are common among people from various ethnic ancestries. Many people from around the Mediterranean don't tolerate fat as well as Scandinavians, but few of them have the intolerance from alcohol and resulting hangovers. Additionally, the frequency of alcoholism in Southern European countries is much less than in Nordic people. Look at the alcoholism rate in Russia, as one example. It is also well-established that African-Americans and people of Central-American ancestry don't tolerate the amount of salt, sugar, and fat as people of European ancestry. The result is these two groups have a problem with high blood pressure and type 2 diabetes.
The worst thing about milk is the amount of fat in it. Although, I'm not sure it is as much of an issue for some people as it is for others. I come from a Russian and Irish background. The Russian side drank whole milk by the gallons, ate cheese, put smetana in soup, an on almost everything else. The Irish side used plenty of butter and heavy cream in addition to whole milk. Nobody on either side of the family had health problems related to consuming tons of dairy products. Northern Ireland was the capital of heart disease for many years, but it appears it was related to eating deep-fried food. Changing the type of oil and less fried food had reduced the rate of heart disease. Similar patterns exist throughout Northern Europe where frying food is common. Also, tracing familial patterns of cooking and eating point toward the direction of fat-fried foods as a major problem. Not the dairy. For Northern Europeans anyway.
Then there are the political issues. There is the group that thinks only raw milk is acceptable. The environmental groups that are trying to discourage people from buying milk thinking that it will reduce the impact of overgrazing and other problems from raising livestock. And then there are the loonies who keep blowing the 'everything regarding race and ethnicity is a social construct' horn. They have a mindset that if the majority of the people around the world are intolerant of milk, it must be bad for everyone because we are all the same. Acknowledging any difference between groups of people defeats their vision.
The ACS page is an abstract describing the DEVELOPMENT of a method to test milk for multiple residues. The actual research involves people developing a new method to test milk. Without seeing the actual article it's hard to decide if they actually tested enough to make a determination on the safety of milk. The abstract certainly doesn't imply that. Instead the article says they have developed a good method for testing milk for these residues.
Sorry, but developing a method to test milk for residues has nothing to do with anything other than development of a testing method. And as far as testing goes, the results are only for what they tested. I find it hard to believe 100% of the milk supply is contaminated.
And if there is a problem with contamination the contamination should be taken care of. Afterall, it would be the contamination that is the problem. Not the milk.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Good fish oil seems to be expensive.
