I Need Whole Milk

EIRE24

Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2015
Messages
1,792
No. I'm trying to detox all of my fat tissue from any synthetic vitamin D that may be stored there. I don't think it's necessary because for example the fact that many Northern people like Brits, Scandaivians etc. grew tall and didn't have rickets which is the sign of vitamin D defiecny tells me that it's not necessary. Brits don't add vitamin D to their milk and they don't have rickets. I believe the supplement form does not act the same as the form made from the sun on the skin.
Makes sense
 

michael94

Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2015
Messages
2,419
sunlight on skin makes other things than vit d like fumaric acid
fumaric acid has a fruity taste
 

lampofred

Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
3,244
Same, whole milk is much much better for me than low fat milk. If I drink low fat milk I get bloated and am in the bathroom all day. 8-10 cups of whole milk day is no problem at all whereas that much skim milk would have me glued to the toilet
 

Travis

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2016
Messages
3,189
More of the beneficial hormones are in Whole Milk vs Low-Fat or Non-Fat milk.

I think there's natural emulsifiers in milk though so that you would still find hormones in the water fraction of the milk, but if the cream is skimmed off the milk you're likely losing some cholesterol and other hormones, including the fat soluble A/D/E/K2.

These nutrients are hard to get in the diet, and dairy fat is probably the most common source since most people do not enjoy the taste of liver or natto.
Skim milk actually has slightly more estradiol than whole milk, ostensibly on account of protein-binding.
 

Travis

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2016
Messages
3,189
Whole milk is not a good source of the FSV. It only has tiny amounts of vitamin A naturally without it fortified and no E and D. People claim that "grass fed" has some k2 but the k2 content in dairy fat is mostly in certain cheeses and not milk. We have bacteria in our GI that make k2 so it's not a matter of consuming certain cheeses as the only way to get it.
I did some reading on vitamin K, and what I'd found interesting was that phylloquinone is cleaved of its tail in the intestine after which the water-soluble menadione (the 'head') is absorbed; after this happens, it is then converted into the prenylated K₂ forms in the arterial wall. I see this as somewhat similar to the β-carotene to retinoic acid pathway, as both vitamin A and vitamin K₂ are both formed from plant precursors albeit with one extra regulatory step involved (and some people—I'm certainly not talking about industry-funded Weston A. Price Foundation—would see this added control as a benefit).
 

Travis

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2016
Messages
3,189
Travis has talked about the much greater estrogenic:androgenic ratio in skimmed milk. @Travis I have seen you talk about the islanders and it has been discussed that coconut fat does not pose any issue, even with glucose use (or small one), but how would you view a high dairy fat diet? Wouldn't that be different, and lead to more insulin resistance and fat gain? Of course, one always has the possibilities to go on a ketogenic diet but a lot of people have reported important issues on it (and some didn't).
The coconut has shorter-chained fatty acids than has cow's milk—goat milk is closer—so would be metabolized at a faster rate. I study that I'd read about one year ago had shown for ever two carbon decrease in length, a fatty acid is burned ~100 times faster. This had been proven using radioactive carbon-14 in the fatty acid chain, after which ¹⁴CO₂ had been detected in the breath. The coconut-eating islanders weren't obese, and had of course been much healthier than most Americans. If anyone is interested, they can compare the two islands studied by Ian Prior: The population of one island studied had consumed about 30% of their energy as coconut and the other about 60%. There had been differences in size between the two cultures, but keep in mind that the higher-fat Tokelauan islanders also had consumed more protein (and that means more methionine, leucine, and tryptophan—which releases growth hormone from the pituitary after becoming brain-serotonin).
 

Travis

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2016
Messages
3,189
No. I'm trying to detox all of my fat tissue from any synthetic vitamin D that may be stored there. I don't think it's necessary because for example the fact that many Northern people like Brits, Scandaivians etc. grew tall and didn't have rickets which is the sign of vitamin D defiecny tells me that it's not necessary. Brits don't add vitamin D to their milk and they don't have rickets. I believe the supplement form does not act the same as the form made from the sun on the skin.
Some leaves actually have vitamin D₃.⁽¹⁾⁽²⁾⁽³⁾⁽⁴⁾⁽⁵⁾ This shouldn't be too surprising, as some of the common phytosterols are very similar to cholesterol. Vitamin D₃ is made non-enzymatically by UV light; and this is, of course, in no short supply in most leaves.

 

Travis

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2016
Messages
3,189
Other than a bit more protein, is there any benefit in eating the white, as well as the yolk, compared to just eating the yolk on its own and throwing away the white, that you know of?
I can't think of one. The egg white: has few vitamins, essentially has no minerals, is essentially all protein—some of which are quite problematic: Besides the classic avidin which causes egg-white injury—whose biotin affinity, by the way, isn't completely destroyed by cooking—the egg-white also has a powerful trypsin inhibitor protein. And also, most total antibodies found against the egg as a whole—a common allergy—are found against egg-white proteins. So not only are egg-whites unusually serotonergic on account of the proteins they contain, the proteins they contain have other problems besides. I think two eggs at a time could be okay with goat cheese and spinach leaves,* but I'd be careful about exceeding that (and do make sure to get enough biotin). There is probably enough linoleic acid in just one of them per day to prevent the synthesis of the infamous Mead acid (20∶3ω−9): The ideal cell membrane lipid.

[*] Perhaps a coconut-spinach omelet would be even better?
 
Last edited:

sunraiser

Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2017
Messages
549
No. I'm trying to detox all of my fat tissue from any synthetic vitamin D that may be stored there. I don't think it's necessary because for example the fact that many Northern people like Brits, Scandaivians etc. grew tall and didn't have rickets which is the sign of vitamin D defiecny tells me that it's not necessary. Brits don't add vitamin D to their milk and they don't have rickets. I believe the supplement form does not act the same as the form made from the sun on the skin.

Brits and Northern EU countries also have extremely high dairy consumption to compensate for their lack of vitamin D. This is compensatory, not optimal! Historically they also had very high oily fish consumption for additional vitamin D.

It’s not good reasoning to forsake vitamin D entirely. Rickets is also the extreme end of vitamin D and calcium deficiency, there’s a huge wellbeing factor between rickets and healthy.

Sunshine is always best and has a far higher therapeutic function than vitamin D supplement, but in the UK and north EU sun is sadly rarely an option. I don’t believe anyone should be highly dosing but it definitely has uses at sub 5kiu starting much lower. Also, supplemental vitamin D is not synthetic, it’s usually from lanolin (from sheep).
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 4, 2015
Messages
1,972
Brits and Northern EU countries also have extremely high dairy consumption to compensate for their lack of vitamin D. This is compensatory, not optimal! Historically they also had very high oily fish consumption for additional vitamin D.

It’s not good reasoning to forsake vitamin D entirely. Rickets is also the extreme end of vitamin D and calcium deficiency, there’s a huge wellbeing factor between rickets and healthy.

But there is no cholecalciferol (vitamin D) in milk so that doesn't make sense. And I'm not forsaking it entirely, I'm getting it from the sun.
 

sunraiser

Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2017
Messages
549
But there is no cholecalciferol (vitamin D) in milk so that doesn't make sense. And I'm not forsaking it entirely, I'm getting it from the sun.

I added a little to my last post.

The dairy consumption is due to the higher calcium requirements in low vitamin D levels. It’s imbalancing and not biologically ideal imo. Perhaps why so many people have dopamine and depression issues at higher latitudes.
 

lvysaur

Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2014
Messages
2,286
Brits and Northern EU countries also have extremely high dairy consumption to compensate for their lack of vitamin D.

More accurately, they have very pale skin to compensate for the lack of vitamin D. The indigenous euro forager populations who ate oily fish were significantly darker.
 

raypeatclips

Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2016
Messages
2,555
No. I'm trying to detox all of my fat tissue from any synthetic vitamin D that may be stored there. I don't think it's necessary because for example the fact that many Northern people like Brits, Scandaivians etc. grew tall and didn't have rickets which is the sign of vitamin D defiecny tells me that it's not necessary. Brits don't add vitamin D to their milk and they don't have rickets. I believe the supplement form does not act the same as the form made from the sun on the skin.

Why do you think synthetic vitamin D is bad?

Also, "not having rickets" isn't the best way to measure vitamin D levels. Low vitamin D is rampant in Britain, if my experiences with a small number of people reflect the population, lots of unwell friends and family members now starting to test for it. Not 1 person I know that has been tested first time was anywhere near the "Peat range", near 50 ng/ml.

Its like saying "I dont have scurvy" so don't eat oranges or drink any OJ.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 4, 2015
Messages
1,972
Low vitamin D is rampant in Britain, if my experiences with a small number of people reflect the population, lots of unwell friends and family members now starting to test for it. Not 1 person I know that has been tested first time was anywhere near the "Peat range", near 50 ng/ml.

I'm not concerned with modern Brits. I'm talking about pre-vitamin D supplements which was only in the last 20-40 years. How did the biggest empire do everything it did for hundreds of years without vitamin D supplements? Not to mention the thousands of years of evolution in those areas of Europe prior to the empire of people successfully surviving and reproducing with what eventually was high IQ people. And yes many people didn't live long but many people also did live long into their 80's and 90's at the same time. Paul Revere lived to be 83 years old without taking a vitamin D supplement while living in cloudy Boston. And I'm not just talking about Britain. I'm talking about anywhere that there was not that much sunlight or only sunlight in the summer in areas of successful peoples for thousands of years prior to vitamin D supplements. That would include parts of China and some others. I can see how the Tahitians had chiefs that grew up to 7 feet tall because it's the tropics but the vikings were tall and strong and they didn't live and evolve in the tropics and had no vitamin D supplements.

Its like saying "I dont have scurvy" so don't eat oranges or drink any OJ.

No it's not because vitamin C and vitamin D are different. The fat solubility of D makes it very different. But even still it takes a while to get scurvy. You don't need every nutrient every day. Peat said this in one of the Roddy interviews.
 
Last edited:

sunraiser

Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2017
Messages
549
I'm not concerned with modern Brits. I'm talking about pre-vitamin D supplements which was only in the last 20-40 years. How did the biggest empire do everything it did for hundreds of years without vitamin D supplements? Not to mention the thousands of years of evolution in those areas of Europe prior to the empire of people successfully surviving and reproducing with what eventually was high IQ people. And yes many people didn't live long but many people also did live long into their 80's and 90's at the same time. Paul Revere lived to be 83 years old without taking a vitamin D supplement while living in cloudy Boston. And I'm not just talking about Britain. I'm talking about anywhere that there was not that much sunlight or only sunlight in the summer in areas of successful peoples for thousands of years prior to vitamin D supplements. That would include parts of China and some others. I can see how the Tahitians had chiefs that grew up to 7 feet tall because it's the tropics but the vikings were tall and strong and they didn't live and evolve in the tropics and had no vitamin D supplements.



No it's not because vitamin C and vitamin D are different. The fat solubility of D makes it very different. But even still it takes a while to get scurvy. You don't need every nutrient every day. Peat said this in one of the Roddy interviews.

These people would largely have been working outside or at least been outside for a large proportion of the day. Also with great access to food and resources, but the almost certainly compensating with fish consumption, too.

I think maybe working outside has a large degree of benefit to stress and mineral (therefore calcium and vit d) retention. Good circadian rhythm and constant light in your eyes can probably cover a multitude of health sins.

With access to an outdoor job I’d definitely ditch the vitamin D, too!
 

raypeatclips

Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2016
Messages
2,555
These people would largely have been working outside or at least been outside for a large proportion of the day. Also with great access to food and resources, but the almost certainly compensating with fish consumption, too.

I think maybe working outside has a large degree of benefit to stress and mineral (therefore calcium and vit d) retention. Good circadian rhythm and constant light in your eyes can probably cover a multitude of health sins.

With access to an outdoor job I’d definitely ditch the vitamin D, too!

This is what I thought too. If people with an office job just go home and do nothing, they could potentially be indoors up to like 22-23 hours a day, if their only outdoor time was their commute. I can't imagine many of my British ancestors doing that.

Good point @Westside PUFAs about not needing everything every day. But maybe in the past the vitamin D summer sun carried them through the winter, as it should, but only works if you go out into it.
 
OP
S

stargazer1111

Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2017
Messages
425
How much are you drinking?
I'd rather have 6-8 ounces of whole milk, instead of a quart of lower fat milk.

My post was from last year. I have long since ditched dairy entirely. Most of my sugar comes from caffeine-free soda now.
 

sunraiser

Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2017
Messages
549
My post was from last year. I have long since ditched dairy entirely. Most of my sugar comes from caffeine-free soda now.

From personal experience, make sure you’re getting a robust iodine intake - most people rely on milk for it. A 225mcg kelp supplement should work fine. Especially so if you’re eating selenium rich foods like beef, liver or tuna.
 
OP
S

stargazer1111

Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2017
Messages
425
From personal experience, make sure you’re getting a robust iodine intake - most people rely on milk for it. A 225mcg kelp supplement should work fine. Especially so if you’re eating selenium rich foods like beef, liver or tuna.

Potatoes are rich in iodine. I eat potatoes daily.

Also, kelp is something I would stay away from. It is true that it has a fair amount of iodine, but it also has a fair amount of toxic elements in it, one of those being bromide.

Bromide is lighter than iodine on the periodic table and will displace it easily in the body.

Tuna is something I wouldn't consume either. Tuna is one of the fishes most contaminated with mercury.

Liver is also something I would never consume. After having studied vitamin A in my spare time outside of the lab for about a year now, I have come to the tentative conclusion that people should be consuming no more than about 800 IU per day. I think the current rda of 3000-5000 IU per day is far too high. Pre-formed vitamin A is a relatively toxic compound and this is evidenced by the way it is handled in the body. It must be chaperoned by a protein and any vitamin A not chaperoned by this protein causes cell death.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom