Originally Posted by Mikebert

How about some links?

If I had any, I would have given them.

I dug a bit and found this:

Whole cows' milk only contains about 0.03micrograms vitamin D per 100g and 1 liter of milk per day will only satisfy 10-20% of the RDA...
As with other fat-soluble vitamins, the concentration of vitamin D in dairy products is increased pro rata by concentration of fat (e.g. in the production of butter or cheese). Vitaim В is relatively stable during storage and to most dairy processing operations

Again, in places where cod or other fatty saltwater fish are available, dairy is not so critical, but those places aren't necessarily so common, and dairy has made for a good alternate source of D.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I've always assumed that dairy practices began around where cattle were domesticated. ...

I've never encountered the idea that dairy was begun in the north as a means to obtain vitamin D, until you and independent bought it up. So I ask again where did you get this notion, how about some links?

Poronmaito.

HTH

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I've always assumed that dairy practices began around where cattle were domesticated. My understanding was that cattle were first domesticated in Western Asia. perhaps in India or Northeastern Africa. All are places with adequate winter sun.
I did a quick search and found the earliest dairy practices were in Turkey, the Levant and Southeastern Europe; once again, not in northern climes. That's not to say that they didn't spread north, there were dairy practices in Britain 1-2 thousand years later.

I've never encountered the idea that dairy was begun in the north as a means to obtain vitamin D, until you and independent bought it up. So I ask again where did you get this notion, how about some links?

Hey, it doesn't have to be vitamin D or calcium, it could just be about maximizing the potential calories of a herd or having access to fresh liquids in areas of drought. For me though, vitamin D sounds like a good theoretical explanation because five glasses of milk is no problem but five minutes in the sun will leave me with new freckles and a nasty burn. I'd rather drink a lot of milk than go fishing in the Arctic during a stormy winter, and its also an environment where wheat doesn't grow well. So my freakish metabolism almost makes sense in context of the environmental situation it evolved from.

We can also look at variations among populations that did domesticate cattle early - but never adapted to high lactose consumption. Check out Italy: most dairy ends up as cheese (the cheese culture digests the lactose so cheese is low in the troubled sugar) and they have plenty of access to Mediterranean fish. So despite the prevalence of domesticated cattle, they still have one of the lowest rates of lactose tolerance in Europe. My Portuguese friend eats fish all day, covers everything with cheese, and needs her "sun time," but a half glass of milk leaves her sick for days. Similarly, the use of cattle as draft animals and as a meat source has thousands of years behind it in China - yet there's almost no real history of dairy and no genetic tolerance for lactose.

For a population to "become" lactose tolerant would have meant a lot of people dying until the rarer genes became dominant. So dairy practices probably rose out of necessity rather than convenience.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

If I had any, I would have given them.

I dug a bit and found this:

Whole cows' milk only contains about 0.03micrograms vitamin D per 100g and 1 liter of milk per day will only satisfy 10-20% of the RDA...
As with other fat-soluble vitamins, the concentration of vitamin D in dairy products is increased pro rata by concentration of fat (e.g. in the production of butter or cheese). Vitaim В is relatively stable during storage and to most dairy processing operations

Again, in places where cod or other fatty saltwater fish are available, dairy is not so critical, but those places aren't necessarily so common, and dairy has made for a good alternate source of D.

Looks like beef has about twice the level of milk.

Raw and cooked separable lean beef samples contained a mean value of 3.17 micrograms/100g of vitamins B12 and 133 micrograms/100g of vitamin E. Samples also contained 80-100 nanograms of vitamin D per 100 grams. Cooking losses were 27-33%, 33-44%, and 35-42%, respectively, for vitamins B12, E, and D.

Unlike most other grains, barley has a good vitamin D and mineral content.

Originally Posted by independent

We can also look at variations among populations that did domesticate cattle early - but never adapted to high lactose consumption. Check out Italy: most dairy ends up as cheese (the cheese culture digests the lactose so cheese is low in the troubled sugar) and they have plenty of access to Mediterranean fish. So despite the prevalence of domesticated cattle, they still have one of the lowest rates of lactose tolerance in Europe. My Portuguese friend eats fish all day, covers everything with cheese, and needs her "sun time," but a half glass of milk leaves her sick for days. Similarly, the use of cattle as draft animals and as a meat source has thousands of years behind it in China - yet there's almost no real history of dairy and no genetic tolerance for lactose.

Well obviously, cultures that did not consume milk but did use cheese would not develop lactose tolerance. Ditto for cultures that did not practice dairy.

The archeological record suggests that people did use not milk initially. I suspect most people had troubles with milk. But apparently some people could use it. People using beef + milk should have an advantage to those using only beef and so it is likley they would have relative reproductive success.

On the other hand, in those populations who started with other food animals and for whom cattle/dairy arrived later, the situation could be different.

Cattle+dairy may not have been surperior as a food source to pigs+chicken, for example, or whatever the pre-existing food sources were. And so those who could tolerate lactose were not at a reproductive advantage.

I did get the fortified levels of vit d mixed up with the non fortified levels, (and I can't seem to find any of the non fortified stats as its an extremely variable quantity [Rani makes a good point about bovine lifestyle choices])

Another interesting tidbit on vitamin d though is where the modern source for fortification comes from: the animal source's skin, fur, and/or feathers. Apparently, it can be absorbed skin to skin by licking or even touching hides and furs. (No one tell PETA)

The amount in beef is considered negligible (since its counted in nanograms rather than micrograms, its about 1/1000th when converted) 8oz Human milk ranges from about 1% DailyValue to 25% DailyValue, and now I'm not even sure if anyone's been able to set a range for unfortified cow's milk. Also, we should remember that our "recommended daily values" are much higher than what was required to sustain a person to age 35 or 40 - "good" lifespans in early agricultural societies. I'm thinking of a world where bare survival is victory and "population turnover" is high.

Originally Posted by independent

The amount in beef is considered negligible (since its counted in nanograms rather than micrograms, its about 1/1000th when converted)

I cited a source that gave a value of 80-100 ng (0.08-0.1 microgram) /100 g for beef compared to Justin's source which said 0.03 microgram per 100 g. If the amount in beef is negligible, then the amount in milk is less than negligible. So why does Justin argue that cow's milk is a pretty good source of vitamin D?

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Looks like beef has about twice the level of milk.

Well, since it's fat-soluble, that makes sense.

Of course, you only get beef from a cow once, but you can get milk from it for several years. In fact, the reason pork is so popular relative to beef in so many places is mainly due to the massive investment one must make into raising a cow over a pig.

Unlike most other grains, barley has a good vitamin D and mineral content.

Funny. The wiki (channeling the USDA) doesn't list D under barley's benefits at all. Maybe the 'relative to other grains' part means we are measuring insignificantly small quantities...

Originally Posted by Mr. Rod Dreher

Tuesday June 23, 2009

Body, mind, and Chinese Medicine

In his 1993 PBS series (and companion volume) "Healing and the Mind," Bill Moyers went to China with Dr. David Eisenberg of Harvard Medical School, who is trained in both Western and Chinese medicine. Here are a couple of interesting excerpts from their conversation:

EISENBERG: The whole Chinese medical system is based on the notion that the way you relate to other people, the way you think, and your emotions govern your health and illness -- what kind of life you'll have and what kind of death you'll have.


MOYERS: Why do the Chinese grasp that in a way we don't? We don't look at our medical system that way. We want a cure.


E: I think the entire Chinese culture is based on the notion that there is a correct way to live, and that how you live ultimately influences your health. It's not just diet or exercise, it's also a spiritual or emotional balance that comes from the way you treat other people and the way you treat yourself. That has always been the highest goal of living in all the Taoist and Confucian traditions. And since that's the basis of their culture, it spills over into their medicine.

M: So there is an ethical foundation to Chinese medicine.


E: Yes, the Chinese medical system is based primarily on Taoism, which claims that it's not just your physical well-being that determines your health, but also your behavior toward others. The doctor was part priest, part martial artist, part scholar, and part empirical scientist. But most of all, he was a teacher. And he not only taught you about diet and exercise, but also guided you psychologically and spiritually to become a better person, because that would shape your health. The doctor tried to teach people the best way to live their lives.

And:

EISENBERG: I think it's one of the most interesting questions the West could ask: Does your morality and intention really matter to your health? The Chinese, however, would not be interested in this question because to them, health was not limited just to one's physical health, but also included one's moral health. So, if you were physically strong but morally weak, you could not be considered "healthy." To us, this approach is combination of religion and medicine. But to them, the way you lived your life and your physical health were inseparable.


MOYERS: You're saying these people still see human beings as we were before Western knowledge broke us up into compartments, and separated the study of health into medicine and psychology and religion.

So can a Commercial Republic that has a healthy liking {and had Governmenatlly funded doctors at hand} for the use of Torture provide for a healthy population in General? Is waterboarding therapy a needful thing in the National formulary? Is Skull Crushing billable? Vitamin D enriched skim milk and Public-Funded supervision of Intentionally Inflicted Agony ... who would be against such provisioned National Health Care?

Originally Posted by Justin '77

In fact, the reason pork is so popular relative to beef in so many places is mainly due to the massive investment one must make into raising a cow over a pig.

That why I suspect dairy didn't catch on in regions like China, where pig production competed successfully with beef+milk and so those who were lactose tolerant did not enjoy an advantage.

I don't think there is evidence that the growth of lactose tolerance in cattle-raising regions has anything to do with vitamin D.

As independent pointed out, his argument could hold simply on the basis of general nutrition and not vitamin D.

My original point was the reason why most of the milk consumed today in the US is rich in vitamin D is because it is added to the milk, not because the milk is a good source of the vitamin. I didn't think either you or independent knew that vitamin D was added to virtually all the milk in the US.

But you continued to maintain that milk is a good source. You mentioned this notion that dairy practices began in northern climes because of a need for vitamin D in support of the idea that unfortified milk is a good source of vitamin D.

There is no evidence in support of this notion, and sources do not say that milk is a good source of vitamin D. Beef is also not a good source of vitamin D, in fact independent says the levels of vitamin D in beef are negligible (they are very small), but the levels in milk are even smaller. So that makes the levels in milk negligble.

And you gave info saying that a liter of milk has only 15-20% of the levels needed per day. That means if you consumed 2000 calories of whole milk you would only get about 50% of the needed vitamin D. This makes milk a poor source of vitamin D.

Of course milk production in antiquity was way too small to provide a big fraction of people's caloric needs, and the fraction of vitamin D provided was smaller still.

Where did you get this notion about the rise of dairy in northern climes as a means to obtain vitamin D? How can it be "all over the place" if you can't you find any urls?

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Yeah five glass of milk. Milk isn't considered a good source like cod liver oil, which was the supplement people used to take before they added vitamin D to milk. My mom used to tell us about how she had to take cod liver oil as a kid while we kids didn't have to because they put it in the milk nowadays.

We used to take CLO daily as late as the early 1970s. Perhaps it's because when I was little, drinking milk before noon-ish made me hurl.

(Afternoon, evening though? No problem. Cheese and ice cream, no problem no matter what time of day. It seems to have been a reaction to milkfat... even today, whole milk and other fatty foods make me sick to my stomach in the mornings if I've had too much of it recently).

Does anyone else get the feeling from watching the health care debacle in Congress that any serious attempts at reform are likely to be strangled and tied in knots by Silent-style process and gridlock? Not to be a pessimist (how un-Millie of me), but I have a feeling any health care reform that finally does get through will likely be watered down and and any chance of needed reform this time around will have been stifled by insurance lobbies and the entangling procedures of Silent-led committees. Just my few thoughts on this subject for what it's worth.

They're sure acting like it. I want to scream at them sometimes that the time for dithering and blithering and fine-tuning the details and mushy compromises has been over for 8 years now. Or to put it more bluntly -

Do your business or get off the potty!

[QUOTE=Mikebert;271259]Healthcare providers don't have their own insurance companies, it's the other way around. The customer for the assay is not the healthcare system, it's the insurance company.



On the contrary. There are lots of companies in which the healthcare providers are all bundled together with the insurance company. A common example is the so-called "Staff model HMO." Kaiser-Permanente is a spectacular example of an insurance company that also has its own bricks and mortar, physicians, MRI's, laboratories, etc.

In Albuquerque, the Presbyterian integrated healthcare system owns hospitals in several cities, hires many of its own doctors, owns its own clinical laboratory. In large organizations like this it's hard to tell where the insurance company leaves off and the healthcare providers begin. Another example: Intermountain Healthcare in Utah - owned mostly by the LDS church.

Originally Posted by TnT

Another example: Intermountain Healthcare in Utah - owned mostly by the LDS church.

Wrong - it's an independent non-profit, spun off in 1975.

Originally Posted by Ghost Echo

The real issue is less how you pay for it, but rather how much you pay for it. No matter whether healthcare is private, public, or somewhere in between, our system is breaking under it's own weight. Personal I favor a voucher system as the best approach.

Concerning food reactions, I'm finding it harder to live with High Fructose Corn Syrup. I know recently the Corn Industry came out with an ad campaign that claims to debunk any criticisms about the product. They claim that it is all natural, safe in moderation, cheap, and a boon to American farmers. However by that definition Ethanol is also all natural, and moderation is nearly impossible because it's so cheap it's being crammed down our throat in such large amounts daily.

I've had growing complications because of HFCS that instantly subsides whenever I can get away from it. But that's the trick. Now that I pay attention I'm amazed in how many products it's one of the main ingredients.

Heh. All you've got to do to lay waste to the Subsidized-Ag Industry's bullcrap is to live for a month or so somewhere that they don't put that garbage in everything. The difference in the way you feel comes in a couple days, and the noticeable improvement in your health in all of a couple weeks.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Heh. All you've got to do to lay waste to the Subsidized-Ag Industry's bullcrap is to live for a month or so somewhere that they don't put that garbage in everything. The difference in the way you feel comes in a couple days, and the noticeable improvement in your health in all of a couple weeks.

Ah, you left out the best and most immediate benefit: How great the real food tastes

Originally Posted by Ghost Echo

The real issue is less how you pay for it, but rather how much you pay for it. No matter whether healthcare is private, public, or somewhere in between, our system is breaking under it's own weight. Personal I favor a voucher system as the best approach.

Concerning food reactions, I'm finding it harder to live with High Fructose Corn Syrup. I know recently the Corn Industry came out with an ad campaign that claims to debunk any criticisms about the product. They claim that it is all natural, safe in moderation, cheap, and a boon to American farmers. However by that definition Ethanol is also all natural, and moderation is nearly impossible because it's so cheap it's being crammed down our throat in such large amounts daily.

I've had growing complications because of HFCS that instantly subsides whenever I can get away from it. But that's the trick. Now that I pay attention I'm amazed in how many products it's one of the main ingredients.

Yeah, its usually not a good sign when you have to spend millions of dollars lobbying the FDA and millions more marketing to convince your customers that your "food product" is safe.

My main complaint with HFCS is the taste - and every trip to Europe reminds me how good Coca-cola used to be.

What also ticks me off is how 90% of the "fruit juice" aisle is just HFCS-water with some lab-invented flavoring chemical. It might not be bad for everyone or in moderation, but it sure isn't equivalent in nutritional content to actual fruit juices.

Originally Posted by independent

Ah, you left out the best and most immediate benefit: How great the real food tastes

Yeah, its usually not a good sign when you have to spend millions of dollars lobbying the FDA and millions more marketing to convince your customers that your "food product" is safe.

My main complaint with HFCS is the taste - and every trip to Europe reminds me how good Coca-cola used to be.

For me it was snickers bars (and bread). But yeah, the taste is a big one, too.

Although, to be completely honest, I am more than capable of making even good quality food taste like crap.

What also ticks me off is how 90% of the "fruit juice" aisle is just HFCS-water with some lab-invented flavoring chemical. It might not be bad for everyone or in moderation, but it sure isn't equivalent in nutritional content to actual fruit juices.

Hah! I've had friends who go to the US come back in simple shock at what sells there under the name of "cranberry juice". Given the fact that cranberry stuff is one of the staples here among the bogs...

Originally Posted by Ghost Echo

The real issue is less how you pay for it, but rather how much you pay for it. No matter whether healthcare is private, public, or somewhere in between, our system is breaking under it's own weight. Personal I favor a voucher system as the best approach.

Concerning food reactions, I'm finding it harder to live with High Fructose Corn Syrup. I know recently the Corn Industry came out with an ad campaign that claims to debunk any criticisms about the product. They claim that it is all natural, safe in moderation, cheap, and a boon to American farmers. However by that definition Ethanol is also all natural, and moderation is nearly impossible because it's so cheap it's being crammed down our throat in such large amounts daily.

I've had growing complications because of HFCS that instantly subsides whenever I can get away from it. But that's the trick. Now that I pay attention I'm amazed in how many products it's one of the main ingredients.

As someone on Weight Watchers who's had to do the same thing, a few comments -

Canned goods. When in doubt, don't buy. They're almost all full of it. Buy frozen.

Spaghetti sauce is full of it. If you have a jumbo cooker, fresh veggies, and olive oil, DIY spaghetti sauce is a snap.

Peanut butter! Yeah, that shocked me, too. Walmart has Smucker's Naturals. or if there's a Whole Foods near you, see if they have a peanut grinding machine.

Contact me privately for more on the subject.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Heh. All you've got to do to lay waste to the Subsidized-Ag Industry's bullcrap is to live for a month or so somewhere that they don't put that garbage in everything. The difference in the way you feel comes in a couple days, and the noticeable improvement in your health in all of a couple weeks.

Absolutely. For me it was a week at a Mexico ecoresort - the Yucatan Peninsula, to be exact.

Originally Posted by independent

Ah, you left out the best and most immediate benefit: How great the real food tastes




Yeah, its usually not a good sign when you have to spend millions of dollars lobbying the FDA and millions more marketing to convince your customers that your "food product" is safe.

My main complaint with HFCS is the taste - and every trip to Europe reminds me how good Coca-cola used to be.

What also ticks me off is how 90% of the "fruit juice" aisle is just HFCS-water with some lab-invented flavoring chemical. It might not be bad for everyone or in moderation, but it sure isn't equivalent in nutritional content to actual fruit juices.

Get real fruit and a juicer. My mom had a citrus juicer that was shaped like a grooved cone in the middle of a moat. Halve the fruit, shove the cut side over the cone, twist a few times, and you have juice. Me, I just eat the fruit.

Originally Posted by The Rani

You don't have to leave the country. Just read the labels before you buy anything.

Bah. Too much effort. Leaving the country is much simpler

...why the market model doesn't work for health insurance.

The industry, Potter says, is driven by "two key figures: earnings per share and the medical-loss ratio, or medical-benefit ratio, as the industry now terms it. That is the ratio between what the company actually pays out in claims and what it has left over to cover sales, marketing, underwriting and other administrative expenses and, of course, profits."

Think about that term for a moment: The industry literally has a term for how much money it "loses" paying for health care.

The best way to drive down "medical-loss," explains Potter, is to stop insuring unhealthy people. You won't, after all, have to spend very much of a healthy person's dollar on medical care because he or she won't need much medical care...

...The issue isn't that insurance companies are evil. It's that they need to be profitable. They have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize profit for shareholders. And as Potter explains, he's watched an insurer's stock price fall by more than 20 percent in a single day because the first-quarter medical-loss ratio had increased from 77.9 percent to 79.4 percent.

The reason we generally like markets is that the profit incentive spurs useful innovations. But in some markets, that's not the case. We don't allow a bustling market in heroin, for instance, because we don't want a lot of innovation in heroin creation, packaging and advertising. Are we really sure we want a bustling market in how to cleverly revoke the insurance of people who prove to be sickly?

IOW, investors buy stock in Health Insurance Corporations for the same reason they buy other stocks-to make money.
That money is made by processes that are in net harmful to other human beings.
Can we convince ourselves that encouraging such a system is meeting the goal of the preamble of our Constitution to "promote the General Welfare?"

Originally Posted by Earl and Mooch

Wrong - it's an independent non-profit, spun off in 1975.

Yeah, well that may be strictly true, but try making a few medically-related sales calls in Utah.

Originally Posted by Ghost Echo

Living in the Corn Belt makes avoiding such foods even harder. Heck, even apple sauce here has HFCS listed as it's second ingredient! Fortunatly for me the biggest offender to my system to easily eliminate are most of the straight pops. The diet versions thankfully don't use HFCS, which is kinda of a 2 for 1 deal on the health front.

Some manufacturers are taking out HFCS out of there products, if only for a little while. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuKPh...eature=related
BTW I think this is kinda of a niffty commercial too.

You can't get Unsweetened applesauce out there? You can here! And pineapple in its own juice and "all fruit" jelly. And do see if they have a Wild Oats or Whole Foods or Trader Joe's or an organic food co-op or store or even any growers' markets where you live.