• Due to excessive bot signups along with nefarious actors we are limiting forum registration. Keep checking back for the register link to appear. Please do not send emails or have someone post to the forum asking for a signup link. Until the current climate changes we do not see a change of this policy. To join the forum you must have a compelling reason. Letting us know what skills/knowledge you will bring to the community along with the intent of your stay here will help in getting you approved.

What Does Ray Peat Say About Raw Milk?

charlie

The Law & Order Admin
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
12,296
Location
USA
After taking this antibiotic, I am thinking raw milk might not be so smart. But then when you go to the raw milk sites, they say about all this good bacteria and that it is life building etc etc. You go to the CDC and they say its dangerous. So, what gives? Not sure how to look at this one. I am thinking of boiling the milk now for a month or so till my body builds back up strength and immune system. But not sure what to do after that.

Any insight on this would be greatly appreciated.
 

Orchid

Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2012
Messages
26
Doesn't Ray Peat say that he likes raw milk when he can get it?
 

charlie

The Law & Order Admin
Thread starter
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
12,296
Location
USA
I do not know, I have seen that said here and there, but nothing direct from him. Peatarian said he did not like raw milk and that he tried to stay away from it due to the bad bacteria in it, or something to that effect. So thats where the confusion comes into play for me. I really would like to get this nailed down because I sure dont want to screw myself up at this point with bad bacteria when I just did this antibiotic treatment.
 

Orchid

Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2012
Messages
26
This is what I've seen from him in regards to milk bacteria.

I normally use pasteurized (and homogenized) milk, and I know people who do best when they use ultrapasteurized milk, and many people who, especially in certain seasons, don't tolerate raw milk. Cows' bacteria change according to what they are eating, and sometimes even the low level of bacteria in pasteurized milk can upset the person's intestinal balance of bacteria.

I can tolerate raw milk perfectly fine, and vastly prefer the taste.
 

charlie

The Law & Order Admin
Thread starter
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
12,296
Location
USA
Orchid, thank you!

I seem to do OK with raw milk and like you I really enjoy the taste of it.
 

Birdie

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
4,250
Location
USA
There's good info on milk on Danny Roddy's page, Ray Peat's Brain. I was reading it the other day. That page is so good. I should read it often. Sorry can't link right now.
 

kettlebell

Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2012
Messages
417
Location
UK
I am unsure about the bacteria but one thing that is certain is that Raw milk contains a significant amount more of usable vitamins and minerals. Pasteurisation does destroy a fair amount of the nutrients milk contains.

This article is an interesting read:

http://www.realmilk.com/whichchoose.html

Raw Milk
Vitamins--all 100% available
Vitamin A--fat soluble
Vitamin D--fat soluble
Vitamin E--fat soluble
Vitamin K--fat soluble
Vitamin B--Complex:
Vitamin Bw--Biotin
Vitamin B --Choline
Vitamin Bc --Folic Acid
Vitamin B1 --Thiamine
Vitamin B2 --Inositol
Vitamin B2 --Nicotinic Acid
Vitamin B2 --Riboflavin
Vitamin B2 --Pantothenic Acid
Vitamin B3 --Niacin
Vitamin B6 --Pyridoxine
Vitamin B12--Cyanocobalamin
Vitamin C
Antineuritic vitamin

Pasteurised
Vitamins
Vitamin A--destroyed
Vitamin D--Not altered
Vitamin E--Not altered
Vitamin K--Not altered
Vitamin B complex--pasteurization of milk destroys about 38% of the vitamin B complex.

So Vitamin A is gone but the other vitamins remain intact.

Minerals-- After pasteurization the total of soluble calcium is very much diminished This concerns me a little (Pasteurised). I have heard from several sources now that very little calcium is biologically available in pasteurised milk.

I am uncertain as to how true the last paragraph is but it does concern me.

Any thought on this?
 

charlie

The Law & Order Admin
Thread starter
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
12,296
Location
USA
Wow, thanks for posting that kettlebell. No wonder they add vitamin A back into the milk.
 

cliff

Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2012
Messages
425
Age
33
Location
Los Angeles
I don't buy that the nutrients are that degraded in pastuerized milk that much. They only heat it up to 160ish for about 15 seconds, that's not gonna do a whole lot of damage and they have no sources for any of there claims.

They only add vitamin A to lower fat milks.
 

charlie

The Law & Order Admin
Thread starter
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
12,296
Location
USA
Cliff do you have any thoughts on the bacteria in raw milk?
 

cliff

Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2012
Messages
425
Age
33
Location
Los Angeles
Charlie said:
Cliff do you have any thoughts on the bacteria in raw milk?

if you can drink it with no digestive issues or other apparent problems it's probably fine.
 

kettlebell

Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2012
Messages
417
Location
UK
cliff said:
I don't buy that the nutrients are that degraded in pastuerized milk that much. They only heat it up to 160ish for about 15 seconds, that's not gonna do a whole lot of damage and they have no sources for any of there claims.

They only add vitamin A to lower fat milks.

Thanks Cliff,

Good stuff.
 

BingDing

Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2012
Messages
976
Location
Tennessee, USA
cliff said:
I don't buy that the nutrients are that degraded in pastuerized milk that much. They only heat it up to 160ish for about 15 seconds, that's not gonna do a whole lot of damage and they have no sources for any of there claims.

They only add vitamin A to lower fat milks.

Your source for the bolded?

On the contrary:

From an article published by the mainstream dairy lobby, see here

1. Raw milk is likely nutritionally superior to conventional milk. "The data suggest that raw milk can cause both trouble and advantage to a human body...To be sure, heating milk to 72°C for 15 seconds reduces the odds of a bad belly, but does it also destroy complex proteins and other components that could bolster human health? Apparently so."


http://www.raw-milk-facts.com/raw_milk_ ... efits.html

http://www.realmilk.com/health/

From http://www.realmilk.com/health/pasteuri ... real-milk/

Just as a calf cannot thrive on pasteurized cow’s milk, so a human baby fails to thrive on pasteurized mother’s milk.
 

nwo2012

Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2012
Messages
1,107
BingDing said:
cliff said:
I don't buy that the nutrients are that degraded in pastuerized milk that much. They only heat it up to 160ish for about 15 seconds, that's not gonna do a whole lot of damage and they have no sources for any of there claims.

They only add vitamin A to lower fat milks.

Your source for the bolded?

On the contrary:

From an article published by the mainstream dairy lobby, see here

1. Raw milk is likely nutritionally superior to conventional milk. "The data suggest that raw milk can cause both trouble and advantage to a human body...To be sure, heating milk to 72°C for 15 seconds reduces the odds of a bad belly, but does it also destroy complex proteins and other components that could bolster human health? Apparently so."


http://www.raw-milk-facts.com/raw_milk_ ... efits.html

http://www.realmilk.com/health/

From http://www.realmilk.com/health/pasteuri ... real-milk/

Just as a calf cannot thrive on pasteurized cow’s milk, so a human baby fails to thrive on pasteurized mother’s milk.


But we are neither calves nor babies. I would take unpasteurized mother's milk from Peat fed women if it were available. :P :lol:
 

cliff

Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2012
Messages
425
Age
33
Location
Los Angeles
BingDing said:
Your source for the bolded?

Wheres the source that vitamins/minerals are degraded in pasteurized milk?

No offense but you obviously didn't read all your articles. "does it also destroy complex proteins and other components that could bolster human health" that quote is based on a study done on children comparing raw to boiled milk(pasteurized milk isn't boiled), they never did any analysis of milk from what I see. The study also found "the results for children who drank minimally pasteurized milk – of the sort typically found in US supermarkets, but not necessarily in European ones - were not statistically significant, possibly because the sample size in the study was small."

I could think of 100 different reasons besides milk for why kids living on farms have less allergies.
 

Jenn

Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2013
Messages
1,035
A healthy cow makes healthy milk and therefore healthy bacteria. A cow can not pass on an illness it doesn't have. Forage fed milk from healthy animals is best. IMO, forage fed with added grain to the diet is probably even better than heavily hay fed animals that aren't grained. Stored feed loses vitamin E rapidly.

Commercial milk tastes nasty to me, too salty and flat...so I admit bias in that area. I am spoiled my the real deal. ;) I cook my milk from time to time in recipes. I don't feel I am losing nutrition, just the enzymes that help digest it.

You can't make cheese out of swill, so as long as it's not colored and doesn't have whey added back in, it's probably a decent source of milk. Commercial milk get adulterated, so you have to pay attention to how YOUR body is handling it.
 

biggirlkisss

Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2013
Messages
922
Ray would say if you can get it good otherwise don't worry about it. It's not worth arguing bout.
 

Raypmom

Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2014
Messages
204
nwo2012 said:
BingDing said:
cliff said:
I don't buy that the nutrients are that degraded in pastuerized milk that much. They only heat it up to 160ish for about 15 seconds, that's not gonna do a whole lot of damage and they have no sources for any of there claims.

They only add vitamin A to lower fat milks.

Your source for the bolded?

On the contrary:

From an article published by the mainstream dairy lobby, see here

1. Raw milk is likely nutritionally superior to conventional milk. "The data suggest that raw milk can cause both trouble and advantage to a human body...To be sure, heating milk to 72°C for 15 seconds reduces the odds of a bad belly, but does it also destroy complex proteins and other components that could bolster human health? Apparently so."


http://www.raw-milk-facts.com/raw_milk_ ... efits.html

http://www.realmilk.com/health/

From http://www.realmilk.com/health/pasteuri ... real-milk/

Just as a calf cannot thrive on pasteurized cow’s milk, so a human baby fails to thrive on pasteurized mother’s milk.



But we are neither calves nor babies. I would take unpasteurized mother's milk from Peat fed women if it were available. :P :lol:

LOL!! Thats some funny stuff!
 

Similar threads

Top