Would not really be surprised if new research leads us to rethink the last few decades of "research". One might wonder what has really caused the obesity epidemic.
I personally prefer milk straight from the tank. Cold and non-processed :-)
They pump the milk out of the cow, into a tank. And periodically the milk company comes and take all of it. I guess it is to preserve it inbetween pick-up.
So, it is cold in the tank. And taste really good!
I'm never really satisfied when people quote these studies that just observed what people drank and concluded "skim milk makes you obese!" when it seems obvious the causation makes just as much sense the other way around - people who are overweight switch to skim milk as a way to cut calories from their diet.
I also like me some moderate energy reserves; it improves almost keeling over from low blood sugar when forgetting to eat or no food is available for a few hours tremendously.
The exact same concept applies to premature optimization, except that in case, it would be obvious that the person is a poor programmer.
When you put in context saving, say, 150 calories (500 ml whole vs. skim milk) in the diet of an obese person who stuffs 4000+ calories in his belly, and practices no sports ("walking a lot" is not included, sorry), then we're talking about mental masturbation, not meaningful, rational, strategies.
First of all, quality matters. You could satisfy your entire calorie requirement with lard, but that would be extremely detrimental to your health.
Also, how our bodies process food is still not well-understood in detail (although there are tons of self-titled experts claiming otherwise). In other words, excess calories == weight gain and insufficient calories == weight loss don't work out just as nicely as you'd think (I think there was an article on HN recently that even pointed out different people have different "default weights" they would find very difficult to stray from in either direction).
Additionally simply not eating that much can be very difficult. Not everyone has the time, energy and money to ensure they eat healthy (and the right things eat the right times of the day) -- although of course for energy this can be somewhat of a catch-22 (bad eating habits lead to lack of energy leading to bad eating habits). And there's also the problem of satiation and rabbit starvation: it's hard to stick with a diet if your body signals you that you're starving and must eat.
As a rule of thumbs, sure, just eat less calories if you're overweight. But good luck sticking with that if you don't have the time, energy and money to experiment with how you can make that sustainable. Otherwise the "yo-yo effect" wouldn't be such a widespread and widely-known problem.
It's also for the species that conquered the world by relying on smart use of animal resources for survival.
I see two legitimate uses nowadays for "cow milk is for calves": raising awareness about the cruel aspects of our relation with other animals and promoting breast feeding.
How much do they consume? What else do they consume?
That saying has been around for ages, but strikes me as one of those superficially smart sounding but actually kind of fundamentally misguided phrases that sometimes become popular. Unless someone is suggesting an all cows milk diet, I suppose.
I wasn't trying to argue the pros and cons of milk and dairy consumption, I was trying to ridicule the argument that fast growth of new born mamals is due to milk consumption and your how the doctor arrived to that conclusion.
New borns are "programmed" to grow fast. They do need energy to allow this growth, but consumption of milk is not the reason. There are a lot of baby humans who are dairy intolerant, they are fed with non-dairy replacements, and surprise, they grow at the same rate as other babies.
Food habits during the growing years also contribute to the perception of taste. I had whole milk while growing up and I still prefer that. One of my friends grew up on the low-fat variety and likes it that way; he even tried whole on my recommendation and went back to low-fat because, "it didn't taste good".
I grew up with whole milk, weened myself to skim (and came to NOT like the heft of whole or 2%), then essentially stopped milk altogether. With kids, milk was brought back into the fridge (whole). Now, I prefer whole (certain premium organic brands are just other-worldly), but it only goes into recipes and the occasional bowl of cereal (like a dessert of fat and sugar).
Most things in moderation and you can focus on the pleasure aspect vs. the health. Whole has more pleasure to it.
If you're going to drink from the bosom of a cow, might as well go fully creepy.
One more little wrinkle: I don't think I can recall ever seeing semi-skimmed milk priced at a discount to whole milk at retail. Someone's got themselves a nice little earner selling off that removed dairy fat.
Interesting. I wonder if handling of an easily-spoiled food isn't a big enough part of the cost to explain the parity between the whole and skim products.
There's no difference in price between whole, semi-skimmed (<2%) or skimmed milk at the British supermarkets I checked online (Sainsbury's, Tesco, Aldi, Waitrose).
But I think the price in the supermarket has little to do with the cost. It's a staple food that people remember the price of, and which can be used to tempt people to switch supermarket.
I think the study over looks the most likely physiological reasoning for this, primarily suggesting it is a matter of satiety (feeling fuller consuming less). People like to hinge on the concept of calories in/calories out, then highlight short term diets of ice cream and Twinkies where people still lose weight because of the caloric intake management. Notwithstanding temporary loses due to reduced calories, such diets do prime one for obesity. On the other-hand diets high in protein and fat (good fats: like almonds, chicken skin, red meats, ect...) do prime one to avoid obesity.
Each body and metabolism is different. However, the rule of thumb is that sugars (Twinkies and ice cream) release insulin which enlarges things in the body including tumors and in this case fat cells which does prime a body for obesity even if one is not currently obese. But healthy fats will trigger the release of glucagon which has the opposite effect of insulin resulting in smaller fat cells which does help in avoiding obesity.
Satiety is everything. The reason overweight individuals have a tough time is that they are not satieted by carb laden foods and thus crave more. Many have broken that cycle with ketogenic diets which are higher in fat.
Satiety is nothing. The reason overweight individuals have a tough time is that they are VERY satieted by carb foods but because the brain produce Dopamine they crave it and can't stop. Fat people = addicted to Dopamine. They will eat cookies, sandwiches and other simple carbs every day and between meals.
there is no hunger believe me, there is craving. If you've been on cocaine you will know what i am talking about. Fats are really not important here, staying away from all simple carbs is the key to battle addiction. But fats are good anyway. Also some research shows that heart attacks are actually from carbs, not fats. check out Cereal Killers Movie
Satiety is more than nothing yet less than everything. Are you equating satiety to feeling satisfied (as in happy)? Because satiety doesn't mean that. It means feeling full. Most obese people I know rarely ever feel satiety. Most feel hungry all the time (because they don't have satiety). When most people feel full and continue eating food which leads to feeling engorged, they stop eating because they soon feel miserable. Sugars and carbs usually don't lead to satiety, fats tend to.
"The reason overweight individuals have a tough time is that they are VERY satieted by carb foods"
Satiety has little to with cravings. It has to do with hunger.
Regardless, I guess we are both in the "wrong" to assume whether particular individuals are truly satieted by carb foods or not. And I think we can both agree that it's best to avoid large amounts of simple carbs.
it is best to avoid all simple carbs or may be even carbs at all. The reason people eat carbs is to hack the brain and get high on dopamines. I salivate when I think about a sandwich or a cookie or even a banana. I could eat them any time of day before. How can a fatso be hungry couple of hours after a meal? No way. The craving kicks in and he goes to a fridge and searches for a snack, and it won't be a broccoli
I would suggest you investigate the prospect that the fundamental human condition involves "dopamine addiction", as dopamine activity is literally the thing our brain does to trigger pleasure in our mind - it is the primary neurochemical mechanism of that feeling. Dopamine-moderated pleasure, or some variant of it, is a basic drive (perhaps synonymous with 'basic drive', with motivation itself) that we likely share with the entirety of the animal kingdom.
I would also point out that fat people very rarely eat much above their natural metabolic burn rate. Instead, people who are presently gaining weight are doing so. Someone who eats an extra 500 calories per day over what their body demands (call it one, one and a half grilled cheese or PB&J sandwiches) gains 1 pound per week, and has gained 52 pounds after 1 year. A fat person who has a stable weight is not eating excess food. The reason you see them eating more food than you, is that when we gain weight, our body demands more energy to feed that body mass; Losing a pound at 130lbs weight requires a similar amount of discomfort & deprivation as losing a pound at 330lbs weight. For them to be feeding a body two and a half times as large on a similar diet as a stable-weight 130lbs person, would represent a very rapid, very uncomfortable weight loss, a starvation diet.
Usually, people gaining weight put on pounds slowly; Gaining 26 lbs per year is a 250 calories per day excess. They're only eating 10 or 15% more than they should be to maintain their weight. This is not the behavior of an out-of-control addict chasing the dragon, but a largely functional feedback loop responding to a slight artificial bias in favor of extra food, or less exercise, than it's naturally tuned for (or at least, than it was subjected to previous to the obesity epidemic).
OMG, it's NOT about calories, if you eat white sugar it goes straight to fat and if you eat almonds, it is digested gradually. Fat people are addicted to sweets, cookies, rice, bread. They don't eat green veggie with olive oil. Just see WHAT they eat ffs. Just go in the cafe and look in their plates. They ALL eat a ton of noodles, rice (Asia), bread, sweet sauces and sweet "juices" and drinks. Come on, time to wake the fuck up
Its absolutely about calories. Habits related to particular foods, including carbs, may be particularly common contributors to thee calorie excess (either by contributing to more calories, or by contributing to food sources which produce feelings which discourage exercise, or both) but ultimately fat gain is produced by a calorie surplus, and maintaining lots of fat.
> That's a pseudo science invented by food companies to make people eat more processed food and sugar.
No, that you need a calorie surplus to increase stored energy, whether in the form of fat or otherwise, isn't pseudo-science (the alternative is pseudo-science of the same sort as perpetual motion machines.)
And people trying to avoid a calorie surplus are not going to eat more sugar ("processed foods" perhaps -- I mean, lots of convenient high-protein, low-sugar, shelf-stable convenient foods are fairly highly processed from their raw forms. OTOH, I don't see a real problem with them, either. All "processed foods" are not created equal.)
> If you sugar spikes from carbs, insulin stores it into fat.
Right. But if you aren't maintaining a calorie surplus, you aren't going to gain stored energy whether in the form of fat or otherwise, because you're going to be using stored energy at least as fast as you are storing it.
OTOH, excess carb intake is often associated with a feeling of lethargy which discourages activity, so in addition to the calories coming in from that activity, that eating pattern can reduce calories going out. And lots of people have metabolic issues related to carbs which make excess carb intake a health problem for other reasons, so its definitely true that there are good reasons to be aware of carb intake for most people, and for people with particular health conditions related to carbs that's even more true.
But its not true that either weight or fat gain is unrelated to calorie balance.
I observed obese people - they all eat simple carbs. Why? They are addicted to dopamine, they tremble and get depressed if they don't eat sugar and carbs. They overeat, that's the reason they are obese.
For a non-obese person calories also don't matter because if you eat equal amount of calories using sugar, almonds or olive oil, the effect will be completely different
> I observed obese people - they all eat simple carbs.
I've observed obese people. And, no, they don't all eat simple carbs.
> Why? They are addicted to dopamine,
You can't be "addicted to dopamine". Dopamine plays a role (or, more accurately, different roles) in various addictions, but isn't the thing to which you are addicted.
> they tremble and get depressed if they don't eat sugar and carbs.
That sounds a lot like hypoglycemia (possibly resulting from chronic hyperinsulinemia), which is a fairly well-established thing, unlike folk-psychology "carbohydrate addiction".
> They overeat, that's the reason they are obese.
This is the one sane thing you say: yes, weight gain results from "overeating", that is, a calorie surplus.
> For a non-obese person calories also don't matter
"also"? As you correctly note previously overeating -- eating an excess of calories -- is where weight gain comes from. That's true whether the person is or is not obese at the time.
Calories absolutely matter. Both for obese people and non-obese people.
OKOK I agree that calories make you fat of course, but if you are not addicted to cookies, sugar and other carbs you won't over consume calories. Why would you overeat broccoli with olive oil? So in this case, you can eat oil and lard.
The credibility of all nutrition recommendations/research has been shot to hell by decades of flip-flopping. Trans-fats are safe! No wait, they really aren't, so forget that they were in pervasive use for 25+ years. Don't eat cholesterol! No, forget about that. Coffee is healthy! No it's unhealthy! No healthy! Unhealthy!
There's no way to trust any of this. Whatever decisions are made now I expect to read about the benefits of the opposite decision in ten years.
When put into the perspective of the entire volume of nutritional research, the concepts which are established as certain are a tiny fraction of the total (for the great majority, one finds every possible opinion/research, and the opposite of it), so being skeptical is perfectly reasonable.
Quoting the article:
-----
> suggests that high-fat dairy consumption within typical dietary patterns is inversely associated with obesity risk.
Obesity risk.
> While not conclusive, the results "may provide a rationale for future research"
Not conclusive.
----
Sadly, under these conditions, it's perfectly reasonable not to exclude that in 10 years, the opposite of such conclusions will be reached.
Agreed. The most glaring example of this was the low-fat guidance given during the 80's and 90's in the US. Sugar and high glycemic index carbohydrates were hardly discussed.
I believe this is partially due to he trend to give all sides of a debate equal weight. Too often we consider multiple double blind experiments equal to multiple anecdotes.
> All milk sold (legally) in the US is processed, because it must undergo pasteurization
So it's a choice between "processed milk" and "slightly more processed milk". I suggest making your decision based on calories instead of the amount of processing. Whole milk has almost twice the amount calories compared to skim milk.
Why do they have to knock bacon in this discussion to bring milk up? A big part of all of this is just to consume less sugar and carbs. I eat bacon, eggs, and vegetables all the time for breakfast and my blood work couldn't be better from my bagel/cereal/oatmeal days.
Go eat more bacon too: http://authoritynutrition.com/is-bacon-bad-or-good/
If you're drinking whole milk, you're getting a mix of fat and sugar. If you're drinking skim milk, you've removed the fat and kept the sugar. Skim milk's popularity is a result of the low-fat fad (perpetuated by the US government and others) which made everyone scared to eat anything with fat in it. But the fat is actually the good part of milk, so if you don't want the milk fat you're better off picking another drink entirely - like almond milk.
65,000+ different animals on Earth weened on their mothers milk, only 1 continues to consumes milk outside of infancy (and from another animal altogether!)...
Majority of adults should avoid dairy products, would be order of magnitude more healthy if calories were replaced with green vegetables.
But among those 65000+ animals, only one has successfully increased its average lifespan significantly in the past 1000+ years. Chief reasons being advancements in sanitation, medicine, and overall diet quality. So "going back to nature" cannot be naively taken as always good.
All milk sold (legally) in the US is processed, because it must undergo pasteurization, a heating process that kills pathogens. Outside of a small group of raw milk activists, this is generally accepted as a positive.
I have been drinking raw milk (just cooled) for over two years now. It's sold here (in Poland but also in Eastern Europe in general) from free-standing machines[1].
It's ~4% fat, slightly more expensive but much tastier. Doesn't keep as well as one sold in a box but you can still drink it with curd on top.
You can't have an "epidemic" from drinking raw milk, since it's not a contagious disease.
However, two of my daughter's classmates were hospitalized just a few years ago from drinking raw milk. It was touch and go for a while, but they recovered and didn't need kidney transplants. http://www.oregonlive.com/health/index.ssf/2012/04/raw_milk_...
>You can't have an "epidemic" from drinking raw milk, since it's not a contagious disease.
Is that really a requirement? Wikipedia says "infectious disease", and, for example, here's a study that refers to an "epidemic" of foodborne illness: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7727673
Interesting. I didn't appreciate that the word "epidemic" has such a broad use (from Wikipedia):
An epidemic disease is not required to be
contagious, and the term has been applied
to West Nile fever and the obesity epidemic,
among others.
The E. coli O157:H7 the girls acquired was foodborne. We don't routinely practice cannibalism in this state, so there was no danger of the outbreak continuing to spread once the farm in question stopped distributing raw milk.
>Though it would seem to follow that consuming less fat would lead to being less fat, that’s not quite what the science says, at least when it comes to dairy—even if whole milk is more caloric than skim.
It mentions about some scientific reason for it but then talks about bunch of high level case studies and that's all.
On a side note, I find most of these case studies a scam, where they exaggerate and manipulate numbers to make it sound scary or utterly interesting for reader's attention.
74 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 157 ms ] threadI personally prefer milk straight from the tank. Cold and non-processed :-)
So, it is cold in the tank. And taste really good!
I also like me some moderate energy reserves; it improves almost keeling over from low blood sugar when forgetting to eat or no food is available for a few hours tremendously.
When you put in context saving, say, 150 calories (500 ml whole vs. skim milk) in the diet of an obese person who stuffs 4000+ calories in his belly, and practices no sports ("walking a lot" is not included, sorry), then we're talking about mental masturbation, not meaningful, rational, strategies.
First of all, quality matters. You could satisfy your entire calorie requirement with lard, but that would be extremely detrimental to your health.
Also, how our bodies process food is still not well-understood in detail (although there are tons of self-titled experts claiming otherwise). In other words, excess calories == weight gain and insufficient calories == weight loss don't work out just as nicely as you'd think (I think there was an article on HN recently that even pointed out different people have different "default weights" they would find very difficult to stray from in either direction).
Additionally simply not eating that much can be very difficult. Not everyone has the time, energy and money to ensure they eat healthy (and the right things eat the right times of the day) -- although of course for energy this can be somewhat of a catch-22 (bad eating habits lead to lack of energy leading to bad eating habits). And there's also the problem of satiation and rabbit starvation: it's hard to stick with a diet if your body signals you that you're starving and must eat.
As a rule of thumbs, sure, just eat less calories if you're overweight. But good luck sticking with that if you don't have the time, energy and money to experiment with how you can make that sustainable. Otherwise the "yo-yo effect" wouldn't be such a widespread and widely-known problem.
I see two legitimate uses nowadays for "cow milk is for calves": raising awareness about the cruel aspects of our relation with other animals and promoting breast feeding.
That saying has been around for ages, but strikes me as one of those superficially smart sounding but actually kind of fundamentally misguided phrases that sometimes become popular. Unless someone is suggesting an all cows milk diet, I suppose.
Passed six months, cows only consume grass, and look how quickly they add mass.
As you point out. Milk is for baby animals. Cow milk is for cows. Adult humans are neither babies nor cows.
Green vegetables are for all omni/herbivores.
New borns are "programmed" to grow fast. They do need energy to allow this growth, but consumption of milk is not the reason. There are a lot of baby humans who are dairy intolerant, they are fed with non-dairy replacements, and surprise, they grow at the same rate as other babies.
Most things in moderation and you can focus on the pleasure aspect vs. the health. Whole has more pleasure to it.
If you're going to drink from the bosom of a cow, might as well go fully creepy.
People in the Natural Golden Age™ didn't generally drink whole milk, either — they skimmed the cream off to use separately.
Interesting. That's not the case in the UK http://www.tesco.com/groceries/product/details/?id=254656543 http://www.tesco.com/groceries/product/details/?id=254656399 or Ireland http://www.tesco.ie/groceries/Product/Details/?id=250005508 http://www.tesco.ie/groceries/Product/Details/?id=250005606 .
But I think the price in the supermarket has little to do with the cost. It's a staple food that people remember the price of, and which can be used to tempt people to switch supermarket.
I think the study over looks the most likely physiological reasoning for this, primarily suggesting it is a matter of satiety (feeling fuller consuming less). People like to hinge on the concept of calories in/calories out, then highlight short term diets of ice cream and Twinkies where people still lose weight because of the caloric intake management. Notwithstanding temporary loses due to reduced calories, such diets do prime one for obesity. On the other-hand diets high in protein and fat (good fats: like almonds, chicken skin, red meats, ect...) do prime one to avoid obesity.
Each body and metabolism is different. However, the rule of thumb is that sugars (Twinkies and ice cream) release insulin which enlarges things in the body including tumors and in this case fat cells which does prime a body for obesity even if one is not currently obese. But healthy fats will trigger the release of glucagon which has the opposite effect of insulin resulting in smaller fat cells which does help in avoiding obesity.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2381335/
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/processed-carbohydrates-are-addi...
http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/9683329 http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v32/n11/abs/ijo2008166a.ht...
Addiction to carbs has the same mechanism as addiction to cocaine
"The reason overweight individuals have a tough time is that they are VERY satieted by carb foods"
Satiety has little to with cravings. It has to do with hunger.
Regardless, I guess we are both in the "wrong" to assume whether particular individuals are truly satieted by carb foods or not. And I think we can both agree that it's best to avoid large amounts of simple carbs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reward_system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dopamine#Animals
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/201...
I would also point out that fat people very rarely eat much above their natural metabolic burn rate. Instead, people who are presently gaining weight are doing so. Someone who eats an extra 500 calories per day over what their body demands (call it one, one and a half grilled cheese or PB&J sandwiches) gains 1 pound per week, and has gained 52 pounds after 1 year. A fat person who has a stable weight is not eating excess food. The reason you see them eating more food than you, is that when we gain weight, our body demands more energy to feed that body mass; Losing a pound at 130lbs weight requires a similar amount of discomfort & deprivation as losing a pound at 330lbs weight. For them to be feeding a body two and a half times as large on a similar diet as a stable-weight 130lbs person, would represent a very rapid, very uncomfortable weight loss, a starvation diet.
Usually, people gaining weight put on pounds slowly; Gaining 26 lbs per year is a 250 calories per day excess. They're only eating 10 or 15% more than they should be to maintain their weight. This is not the behavior of an out-of-control addict chasing the dragon, but a largely functional feedback loop responding to a slight artificial bias in favor of extra food, or less exercise, than it's naturally tuned for (or at least, than it was subjected to previous to the obesity epidemic).
If you sugar spikes from carbs, insulin stores it into fat.
No, that you need a calorie surplus to increase stored energy, whether in the form of fat or otherwise, isn't pseudo-science (the alternative is pseudo-science of the same sort as perpetual motion machines.)
And people trying to avoid a calorie surplus are not going to eat more sugar ("processed foods" perhaps -- I mean, lots of convenient high-protein, low-sugar, shelf-stable convenient foods are fairly highly processed from their raw forms. OTOH, I don't see a real problem with them, either. All "processed foods" are not created equal.)
> If you sugar spikes from carbs, insulin stores it into fat.
Right. But if you aren't maintaining a calorie surplus, you aren't going to gain stored energy whether in the form of fat or otherwise, because you're going to be using stored energy at least as fast as you are storing it.
OTOH, excess carb intake is often associated with a feeling of lethargy which discourages activity, so in addition to the calories coming in from that activity, that eating pattern can reduce calories going out. And lots of people have metabolic issues related to carbs which make excess carb intake a health problem for other reasons, so its definitely true that there are good reasons to be aware of carb intake for most people, and for people with particular health conditions related to carbs that's even more true.
But its not true that either weight or fat gain is unrelated to calorie balance.
http://www.webmd.com/diet/20120626/all-calories-not-created-...
That's what you just said. You're wrong, btw. Plent. Of morbidly obese and super obese people eat lots of fat.
For a non-obese person calories also don't matter because if you eat equal amount of calories using sugar, almonds or olive oil, the effect will be completely different
I've observed obese people. And, no, they don't all eat simple carbs.
> Why? They are addicted to dopamine,
You can't be "addicted to dopamine". Dopamine plays a role (or, more accurately, different roles) in various addictions, but isn't the thing to which you are addicted.
> they tremble and get depressed if they don't eat sugar and carbs.
That sounds a lot like hypoglycemia (possibly resulting from chronic hyperinsulinemia), which is a fairly well-established thing, unlike folk-psychology "carbohydrate addiction".
> They overeat, that's the reason they are obese.
This is the one sane thing you say: yes, weight gain results from "overeating", that is, a calorie surplus.
> For a non-obese person calories also don't matter
"also"? As you correctly note previously overeating -- eating an excess of calories -- is where weight gain comes from. That's true whether the person is or is not obese at the time.
Calories absolutely matter. Both for obese people and non-obese people.
you should start with basics then. If you think there is no sugar and simple carbs addiction, wow
http://www.webmd.com/diet/ss/slideshow-sugar-addiction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_addiction
>Calories absolutely matter
OKOK I agree that calories make you fat of course, but if you are not addicted to cookies, sugar and other carbs you won't over consume calories. Why would you overeat broccoli with olive oil? So in this case, you can eat oil and lard.
I'd imagine a steak lover who just finished a porterhouse with bernaise is also high on dopamine.
There's no way to trust any of this. Whatever decisions are made now I expect to read about the benefits of the opposite decision in ten years.
When put into the perspective of the entire volume of nutritional research, the concepts which are established as certain are a tiny fraction of the total (for the great majority, one finds every possible opinion/research, and the opposite of it), so being skeptical is perfectly reasonable.
Quoting the article:
-----
> suggests that high-fat dairy consumption within typical dietary patterns is inversely associated with obesity risk.
Obesity risk.
> While not conclusive, the results "may provide a rationale for future research"
Not conclusive.
----
Sadly, under these conditions, it's perfectly reasonable not to exclude that in 10 years, the opposite of such conclusions will be reached.
There certainly is a way to trust it. http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html
So it's a choice between "processed milk" and "slightly more processed milk". I suggest making your decision based on calories instead of the amount of processing. Whole milk has almost twice the amount calories compared to skim milk.
Majority of adults should avoid dairy products, would be order of magnitude more healthy if calories were replaced with green vegetables.
I have been drinking raw milk (just cooled) for over two years now. It's sold here (in Poland but also in Eastern Europe in general) from free-standing machines[1].
It's ~4% fat, slightly more expensive but much tastier. Doesn't keep as well as one sold in a box but you can still drink it with curd on top.
I haven't heard of any epidemics.
[1] https://i.imgur.com/7MhxOuZ.jpg
People in the US have had kidney failure as a result of raw milk. That's pretty risky considering not many people drink it.
If I knew what the Polish is for "kidney failure" I could probably find the Polish children who were made very ill by parents imposing their fads.
However, two of my daughter's classmates were hospitalized just a few years ago from drinking raw milk. It was touch and go for a while, but they recovered and didn't need kidney transplants. http://www.oregonlive.com/health/index.ssf/2012/04/raw_milk_...
Is that really a requirement? Wikipedia says "infectious disease", and, for example, here's a study that refers to an "epidemic" of foodborne illness: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7727673
>Though it would seem to follow that consuming less fat would lead to being less fat, that’s not quite what the science says, at least when it comes to dairy—even if whole milk is more caloric than skim.
It mentions about some scientific reason for it but then talks about bunch of high level case studies and that's all.
On a side note, I find most of these case studies a scam, where they exaggerate and manipulate numbers to make it sound scary or utterly interesting for reader's attention.