What Is SlimFast?
SlimFast ingredients include fat free milk, water, sugar, cocoa processed with alkali , gum Arabic, calcium caseinate, cellulose gel, canola oil, potassium phosphate, cellulose gum, soybean lecithin, mono and diglycerides, artificial flavor, carrageenan, maltodextrin, and dextrose. Meal Replacement Shake for Weight Loss. Foodborne illness is a concern for many types of food. Considering you mentioned you experience severe gastric problems, you may want to reach out to a healthcare professional. You may have seen headlines like this:. And I think I was also not making sense when I said what you were assuming. It could be anything from yeast to ecoli.
In reality, it would be difficult to come up with a truly objective assessment of the taste of SlimFast products since taste is rather subjective. However, based on what users are saying, there are those who say that the meal replacements contain too much sugar. Some say the coffee products seem to taste like they contain burnt coffee beans. Still, there are those who say that they like the taste of SlimFast products.
Perhaps, a more sensible way to put it is to say that SlimFast tastes just like how a typical diet would taste. SlimFast recipes, meal replacements, and snacks are not meant to cut down on sugar, salt, and other typical ingredients that create the flavor everyone is accustomed to.
The goal is more on controlling the amount and type of meal eaten. Like most other products, SlimFast is far from perfect.
It is not free from side effects. Different people have different reactions to its products and SlimFast recipes. This is something that cannot be totally ruled out since too much consumption of protein does have adverse effects, one of which is diarrhea. SlimFast promotes low-calorie intake, which may lead to minor side effects such as constipation, fatigue, and nausea. Also, rapid weight loss brought about by low-calorie diets can result in gallstones. This happens because a calorie deficit signals the body to break down fats for energy and for the liver to secrete more cholesterol.
These combined with bile from the liver can lead to the formation of gallstones. It reported that the use of sugar substitutes in the sugar-free versions of SlimFast shakes might cause gas build-up in the stomach and possibly diarrhea in some users. To avoid the unwanted effects of imposing a low-calorie diet, you should consult a diet or health expert. The sudden drop in blood sugar levels can result in fatigue, dizziness, and other conditions associated with low blood sugar.
Additionally, a SlimFast diet may also interfere with medications. If you are taking insulin or if you are maintaining blood pressure medication, be sure to consult your physician before doing the SlimFast diet. Adjustments may have to be made to avoid health problems or complications. Low-calorie diets should only be adopted by those who have a BMI of at least It is also not advisable for pregnant women and breastfeeding mothers. However, alcohol can reduce the weight loss efficacy of this diet plan especially if you take in a lot of calories from mixers.
This is apparently one of the products when the brand was still under Unilever. The public is hence advised not to buy it. Since the SlimFast products available on the SlimFast. Consider the following alternatives:. This is a comprehensive low-calorie diet plan about calories per day that also involves the use of meal replacements.
The plan entails medical supervision as well as counseling and lifestyle education. You will also have to take in vitamin and mineral supplements following the Optifast plan. If you prefer something that affords greater flexibility, Medifast is something you might want to consider. It lets you choose a plan that involves 4 Medifast meals meal replacements , 2 self-prepared meals, and 1 healthy snack. This plan lets you consume around 1, calories per day.
SlimFast is mainly about taking a low-calorie diet by substituting two of your three meals for the day with meal replacement shakes or smoothies and eating three snacks for the day with calories each.
You just have to make sure you get enough nutrition with them and that they are around calories each. Recommended ingredients would include lactose-free yogurt, non-fat milk, raw cacao powder, flaxseed, various berries, peanut butter, and unsweetened almond milk.
Works like a charm. However, not really satisfying as to curbing hunger pangs. Lasts only a short period of time. Way too much sugar for me. So, are you heading out to buy a case of SlimFast Advanced Shakes? Do you want to trim down a bit? If so, we suggest going with a supplement with a formula containing clinically tested ingredients shown to help promote weight-loss. It features four clinically-tested ingredients which have been shown to help accelerate metabolism, ignite fat loss and fight hunger.
Choosing the right weight-loss system can be confusing and often times frustrating. Let us know a little more about you and your goals. SlimFast ingredients include fat free milk, water, sugar, cocoa processed with alkali , gum Arabic, calcium caseinate, cellulose gel, canola oil, potassium phosphate, cellulose gum, soybean lecithin, mono and diglycerides, artificial flavor, carrageenan, maltodextrin, and dextrose. Choosing the right product is the 1 question asked by DietSpotlight readers.
We recommend trying any product before buying it and know that finding a product with a sample offer is near impossible - so we created our own product, Burn TS, with scientifically backed ingredients.
SlimFast meal replacement shakes are not directly clinically tested or proven, but research shows meal replacements, in general, can help reduce caloric intake. So, how good is SlimFast for weight loss? You can also find it in some convenience stores, according to SlimFast reviews. SlimFast can be purchased using their Official Site or through Amazon. SlimFast meal replacement shakes are suggested twice daily when following the diet plan.
However, depending on your caloric needs, this may be different for you. Ultimately, the idea is to burn more calories than you take in to lose weight. Slimfast provides an easy way to meet calorie goals for the day. By controlling portion size and limiting caloric intake, you can lose weight and keep it off. Some SlimFast reviews claim the meal replacements taste a little gritty or powdery. Before purchasing SlimFast, you may want to consider trying a weight loss supplement to achieve your goals.
You might want try one that contains clinically researched ingredients, like Dietspotlight Burn. Summer Banks, Director of Content at Dietspotlight, has researched over weight-loss programs, pills, shakes and diet plans. Previously, she managed 15 supplement brands, worked with professionals in the weight loss industry and completed coursework in nutrition at Stanford University.
Do Not Send Email Notifications. Just started with slimfast and it seems to be working, lost 3 lbs in 2 weeks , but it may have had cause of irregularity, do not know if any one else has had the same problemTell us your thoughts about SlimFast. Tried slim fast in the part. What l found is losingtje natial way. Weight more weight by eating less. For now my excerise is mainly walking for an hour. Walk more like brisk. I lost 3 pounds in a week..
I have no problem with the Slim Fast diet program. I have lost almost 25 lbs. I plan on staying with it for another 5 lbs. I been losing lbs per month.
Plus have not had any health issues. How does it work? Do you drunk all day long? I plan on trying it since I just had another baby almost 9 months ago and I wanna get my old body back soon real soon cab you please help I would be greatly appreciative and thankful.
It is about 5 days now I started taking slim fast shake. But I am not sure it is because of this product. Considering you mentioned you experience severe gastric problems, you may want to reach out to a healthcare professional. Click above to read about the sample offer. I love this product and it is very frustrating not to be able to find it!! I even went on line to purchase it and they were sold out! But last week they had it, but was only going to let me buy 2, when I was wanting 10 cans.
I like the powder so I can mix it myself. Thank you for listening. Read all comments which find helpful thankyou and good luck to all xx. I will quit it inmmediately. Had to stop it. Never gonna take it again, If anyone is thinking about having it, think and search before doing it.
I have been a long time user of slim-fast shakes. Today I am quitting. The reason is inconvenience of the new plastic bottles. I use to have my shake on the run. Pop the top and drink it on the drive to work. Now I have to remove the cap, remove the aluminum foil and figure out a place to put them while I drink my shake. Looks like the price went up when you shifted to plastic as well. I went to the pharmacy to pick up meds and slimfast and was shocked at what I saw.
Now your company is cheating us out of your product. I use to get a 12 pack now its an 8 pack. It use to be 11 ounces, now its 10 ounce. The 6 packs are now 4 packs for the same price. What the heck is going on? I feel your company is starting to screw the consumer.
Does your company think that us consumers are stupid, do you think just because you put your product into a plastic bottles that we well be happy? I think you need to talk to your marketing dept or your CEO and tell them that the public is not happy.
The sales person said she had several complaints since your product hit the shelves. Its bad enough our gas and cost of living is going up, and now the one thing I felt I could afford to help me with my weight problem has gone up.
I think you need to do some changes before people start to boycott your product…A concerned consumer. I agree with your comment. I will go to another brand. It is the price. Regular price is 4. You are missing the units. These are not just pure numbers without units. If they were, then sure, you could average it and such without any problem. But look at the units and you will start to see that averaging over 10 years is creating a number of assumptions out of thin air which I have already mentioned prior.
And in addition you are comparing incomparable units. Americans in general is another unit. So even if your math could work, you are still comparing incomparable units. For example, it is possible that most of these raw milk drinkers in Minnesota are ALSO getting local organic produce instead of stuff filled with pesticides that also lacks any of the local pathogens. Small amounts of the same type of pathogen not to mention local probiotics which compete with those pathogens can conceivably have a vaccine-like effect, and the lack of pesticides would conceivable boost immunity.
And what about how frequently the raw milk drinkers eat out vs other people? Eating out is usually more dangerous than eating in, especially at lower-class restaurants. I would also want to know the level of education of the raw milk drinkers vs other folks. People with more education tend to have more understanding of risk avoidance.
And even if you had comparable units and the ability to control for various risk factors, you may still have conflicting study methodologies to look for. Briggs, which is making predictions out of data that has already been gathered. When you have such pre-gathered data, there is always a way to find what you are looking for.
The only way to do real science is to make a hypothesis and test it by taking samples longitudinally as time goes on. Usually with different people doing the studies. For example, Under reporting. CDC data was not controlled for all kinds of risk-benefit factors from what I can see.
Where did you see that? A multiplier factor has nothing to do with risk-benefit controls, in fact the opposite. Risk-benefit controls help us to be more careful about our conclusions. Multipliers help us be more aggressive about our conclusions. Kresser can differ so widely on the estimate of how dangerous raw milk is compared to pasteurized milk. And I was not looking at this Minnesota study for that analysis. What you are doing is, first of all, using this trashy Minnesota study to base your stats off of, then comparing Minnesota trash stats with national stats, which are hopefully not based on such loose associations, and then using these comparisons to make new claims about the health benefits of raw milk which the data clearly do not support.
The units are illnesses and people. X amount of illness among Y amount of people. The number of illnesses among raw milk drinkers multiplied by an under reporting multiplier over the total population of Minnesota x 0.
Why would you make that assumption? The only possible incorrect assumption would be that the same number of people got sick each year. But since it is only an average we know that is not the case. You are assuming that by saying that 1. That is not the same as saying that each year, 1. No, the units are not X illnesses among Y people, not from what I can see in this Minnesota report.
The units are case-patients… which is a bit vague. If it merely said illnesses, then there would be no implication of actual unique persons being counted. This is why raw data is useful to have. If you want to say that raw milk drinkers are 9x less likely to get a food-borne illness, then look at national data. And I think I was also not making sense when I said what you were assuming.
Because remember we are talking about raw milk drinkers as the unit. I think I am becoming more mentally dyslexic and confused as I get older. I blame everything on Lyme disease… and pasteurized milk that I drank for so long.
I am not using this data to justify raw milk consumption to you. It is for people still trying to make sense out of CDC press releases.
The Minnesota study is just as reliable as any other CDC data. It is simply putting the answer in simplest terms. When I compare the Minnesota data to US data the only assumption I am making is that Minnesota raw milk consumers are the same as other raw milk consumers. Do you really think any possible difference would explain a 9 fold negative absolute risk factor. There is another way to simplify the raw milk question. If you do a search for how often the average American gets diarrhea, it will say the average American gets diarrhea 4 times a year, which is close to my pre-raw milk experience.
We should not drink raw milk because it could theoretically contain bacteria that could theoretically cause diarrhea in some people some of the time. So just try it. As a matter of fact try the raw milk diet.
Try it for 3 months. If you see health benefits you know the raw milk consumers were right. Actually, what CDC is saying is that raw milk is much more dangerous than pasteurized milk in terms of, especially, hospitalizations. In fact CDC was not stressing the hospitalization thing so much, altho they did mention it, but as I mentioned they were being stupid and talking about outbreaks rather than illnesses. When did I do that? How can they not have seen this?! If you would phrase yourself that way, it would strike me as more honest, even if you are wrong about your interpretation.
It takes epidemiology to figure that kind of thing out. Like riding a bike vs driving a car. Yes, riding a bike is far more dangerous per mile than driving a car.
But the health benefits are profound, so you have to weigh the risks to the benefits. No, because the Minnesota study is not based on reported outbreaks. It is in fact, excluding those, and estimating what is left after excluding them using some highly questionable techniques as you said, assuming that raw milk is the cause of the illness just because someone drank it recently and the bacteria could be present in milk.
You are also making the assumption that the non-raw-milk-drinkers of Minnesota are just as likely to get ill from food as non-raw-milk-drinkers in the whole U.
Might these be valid assumptions? Like the sense of self as a causal agent, for example, when in fact everything simply happens due to conditions when you think about it. Is it the diarrhea itself that you are suggesting we are less likely to get by 9x if we drink raw milk? If so, where do you find the rate of diarrhea among raw milk drinkers?
Persons with a chronic condition in which diarrhea or vomiting was a major symptom and persons with concurrent symptoms of cough or sore throat were excluded. So if it is even meaningful to compare Minnesotans with Americans in general without telling people we are doing that , we have to compare the Minnesotans in this study who, remember, were actually hospitalized 1. Divide by ,, and you get a rate of hospitalization of 40x less for the average american than for the Minnesota raw milk drinker not including those involved in outbreaks even.
They used a 10x multiplier in the national survey, and in the survey looks like a 20x multiplier. In the Minnesota survey they used a 40x multiplier. Ok but there is an obvious problem with this approach, because the rate of hospitalization for the average Minnesotan based on the Minnesota study is itself x less than the national average.
So there has to be something very different between the two methodologies. Just based on the Minnesota study, we find that 3. So even if ALL illness is from raw milk if you are a raw milk drinker haha! And to think that raw milk is this safe when, according to the Minnesota report: Please check my methods, because I have now come to 2 separate and totally opposite conclusions—the latter of which seems to be based on much simpler math with less room for error.
My god Joel, not that stuff again. What does that have to do with anything? This study is really not about trying to say how risky raw milk is, which makes it perfect for comparing it to the national data which is also not tided to a particular food.
Yes these were raw milk drinkers but the illness were not associated with raw milk. Case-patients were simply persons with laboratory-confirmed Enteritidis infection. Why would you think otherwise? Or maybe to just poke fun at the CDC. Oh, by the way you were doing a good job with that x thing. I did one of those a while back, myself. I was able to get it down to 0. The illnesses they included were never associated with raw milk. Most of the illnesses excluded were never tested for interact infection.
And what difference does it make if it is the same person or not? It is silly for us to use epidemiology when we can use empirical science. The CDC is not in the health food business. They will never do the kind of research you are talking about. Besides they already know the truth about raw milk. That is why they are so good at avoiding it. Hmm, my last long reply was not posted yet, but anyway right to the point… The Minnesota study shows that in a state with 2.
Nor does it appear to offer a great deal of protection from food poisoning in general. Just judging from that study. It works the same way.
In other words, a negative absolute risk factor. The data you are using suggests a positive risk factor because it is based on the assumption of the attending physician, that raw milk is the most likely cause.
The Minnesota study shows the Enteritidis risk of not drinking raw milk. Just as correlation is meaningless without a mechanism. If this were a class in statistics or probability, the teacher might call you out on this type of thing. I thought I knew why they excluded the patients linked to a recognized outbreak but on second look, I have to say, I have no idea why. This reminds me of what the did with the raw milk lactose intolerance study.
Well OK if you add them back in you get 5. Scheftel, and Kirk E. They excluded them because the point of this paper was to figure out how many people are getting illnesses from raw milk they assume that are not currently being counted due to not being part of outbreaks. Can you describe your reasoning for saying that the stats in this paper show non-raw-milk-drinkers are 3x more likely to get enteritis?
What do you get? Case-patients are the same as degree days. Can you give a run-down of how I can do your calculation and get your result? From the study it seemed the opposite—raw milk drinkers a bit more likely to get enteritis.
I agree the Minnesota study is: I was comparing apples and oranges. Among the 14, patients, 3. Among the 20, patients, 2. These bacteria are probably part of their normal gut flora and probably had nothing to do with their diarrhea. That is not their stated purpose or stated result. It is what the title states. The result of your math gives: Not sure what that is representing tho. But even if raw milk is x the risk of pasteurized milk based on CDC national stats of hospitalization , we would only expect to see about double the rate of hospitalization in absolute numbers, for raw milk drinkers, since pasteurized milk is so low-risk in comparison to other food.
With these small absolute increases in hospitalization rate, it is very difficult, as mentioned, to have a good idea of the cause. But what interests me is not necessarily whether raw milk protects from enteritis, but what about protection from GERD? And when you have GERD it can become self-reinforcing and chronic, requiring acid blockers which have really nasty long-term side effects due to preventing proper food digestion and vitamin uptake. That is well-documented already with raw milk.
I just figured out why they picked these particular bacteria for this study. These bacteria are most often associated with raw milk only because they are the bacteria most often associated with farmers and farmers make up the majority of raw milk consumers. These bacteria are just as often found in the stool of healthy people. Norovirus is the most common pathogen associated with so called foodborne illness but norovirus is most often associated with city slicers.
Bacteria — Definition — ubiquitous one-celled organisms, spherical, spiral, or rod-shaped. Ubiquitous — Definition — present, appearing, or found everywhere. Are you familiar with the human microbiome? Farmers simply have different normal flora. This is the scenario we should be researching. Got to check on my kids right now. Check out these tables. Remember what I said about norovirus? Identifying personal microbiomes using metagenomic codes.
If the intestinal flora is suppressed by antibiotics, however, the individual becomes much more susceptible and can be infected by a relatively small inoculum. Typically, people with salmonella infection have no symptoms. Abstract — Community composition within the human microbiome varies across individuals, but it remains unknown if this variation is sufficient to uniquely identify individuals within large populations or stable enough to identify them over time.
Our approach defined body site-specific metagenomic codes: Codes capturing strain variation in clade-specific marker genes were able to distinguish among s of individuals at an initial sampling time point. The failure of a code to match its owner at a later time point was largely explained by the loss of specific microbial strains at current limits of detection and was only weakly associated with the length of the sampling interval. This work demonstrates the feasibility of microbiome-based identifiability-a result with important ethical implications for microbiome study design.
This is one of the reasons your 2. Also how many fresh milk consumers are there really? Oh, and did you know, in , there were over 16, confirmed cases of Salmonella infection that were traced back to pasteurized milk from a single dairy.
Major outbreaks can completely obliterate these kind of numbers. All good points, Mike. Still not sure exactly what a case-patient is—seems to have not been completely defined in the study. They said they found only one patent with 2 cases. These are your units. Sometimes I think you like to through in a little balderdash just to though a person off. When my milk test results come back clean for all these bacterial possibilities, I drink it.
It also is mandatory to sterilize all your equipment after each use, sanitize the user well and use a test dip for avoidance of possible mastitis. I also gave up attempting hand milking so I can milk faster and get the milk into cooler faster at 35 degrees. I never air expose my milk, but let it go into tube into stainless container immediately so no dust, soil or air dust affect milk.
In fact, I just drank a fresh glass of chilled raw milk 10 minutes ago. A2A2 milk is very healthy for you. Linda, I have a 5 yr old son that has autism, and I have been looking everywhere for raw organic a2a2 milk that has sanitary standards like yours. Are you anywhere near us or do you have any advice on where I can go? However, I believe I got a parasite from incorporating raw Parmesan cheese in my diet. I do blood smears every 3 months due to picking up a few Lyme-like infections a few years back and I keep a journal of every change I make in my diet and lifestyle habits.
The two things I did differently that got me from parasite-free to parasite-infested were adding raw cheese and pork. I took both of them out and the infection went away after taking antimicrobials for a short period.
That said, I am still interested in raw milk. Would be cool to have your own happy cows. Having drunk raw milk for better than 10 years, and having read the literature, I know better than to believe all the imagined dangers. But properly cared for pastured cows are an entirely different matter! I like to point out to fellow raw milk aficionados that most milk in the US still comes from small farms and that there is no reason to believe that even the worst swill milk is or ever was as bad as the pasteurized milk we now see in our supermarkets.
Certainly raw grass fed A2 milk is healthier but there is no reason to think that raw CAFO milk is not still a super-food. The health problems associated with pasteurization showed up almost immediately in the form of rickets, osteoporosis and the like.
Pasteurization was then and still is today pushed by the medical industry. This industry knew then and most likely still knows today that pasteurization destroys raw milk as a health-food. In my 18 years and in two states we have had a number of raw milk related illnesses. All of these children were infected with E.
The sources of illness in all cases were definitively traced to family dairies that sold raw milk. They faithfully utilized best practices and cared for their herds in pristine fashion. The problem is that these organisms are endemic in this environment. It cannot be helped or prevented. They are not the same pathogens that existed when our parents and grandparents farmed.
Food borne illness can be prevented. So why not for dairy…. Recommending raw milk for infants and children is akin to suggesting undercooked chicken holds a small chance of illness. Not possible and you know it!!! Most cases of so called foodborne illness are never associated with any food and the ones that are can not be proven to be food related let alone proven to be caused by the food they are associated with. Your understanding of food borne illnesses is far from the truth and I hope that one day you are able to clear out your contact lenses and understand the facts of the matter.
Caveat Emptor [ Let the buyer beware. Our whole family in Malaysia drink raw milk from the time we were young. The milkman would come to our house everyday and deliver it and it taste wonderful. As we grew older, we switched to pasteurized milk as we heard a lot of health concerns and sanitary issues concerning the raw milk. Now I am an adult and earning my own money, i found the milkman and have got him to send to my house every two days.
We boil our milk and dont drink straight from it though. And the taste is just wonderful. Katherine, you have been tricked by the pharmaceutical industry. In the US people that know the value of raw milk are willing to pay 10 times as much for it. Boiling your milk is a crime. If you were raised on raw milk you know there is no danger.
Americans who drink raw milk hardly ever get diarrhea. No one is being accused of murder. This is all your article says:. Save your breath Gerry. Why not include more from the article, like this:.
The death is being investigated by the coroner. The other four children aged between one and five became seriously ill in recent weeks following infections linked to the milk, but have since recovered.
Three of the children had haemolytic uraemic syndrome and two others had cryptosporidiosis, a parasitic infection that commonly presents as gastroenteritis with watery diarrhoea. Dr Lester said raw milk could contain dangerous bacteria and parasites and posed a heightened risk for young children, the elderly, pregnant women and people with underlying health problems.
Young mothers you know which one to believe…. Charles, Dr Lester never said the death was caused by raw milk. I quoted your very same quotes to make my point. I see what you mean about saving my breath.
No child today in America should die from diarrhea. The world is full of stupid and persistent RawMikes Gerry. When you offer them the facts they demand, they completely ignore them and then makes things up from the same evidence.
Just like those clowns who go on and on about events like Ferguson, MO while only the grand jury had the facts. Did you see anything in the story about child or hospital neglect Gerry? To do something so flagrantly dangerous to children because he thinks he sounds clever reminds me of the people of Westboro Baptist Church. I long ago quit on him.
To try and help parents get the facts about the dangers of raw milk to their children is a noble and good effort, so hang tough. By now there are tons of useful links within this discussion—a tribute to the author of the piece. The world is full of evil trolls Gerry. When you offer them the facts they demand, they completely ignore them and change the subject. Using their own data against them is unique to rawmilkmike. Did you see anything in the story about child or hospital Gerry?
Just like those reporter clowns in the press going on and on about events like Ferguson, MO without any facts. Like white people in masks breaking windows and outside provocateurs throwing bricks and smoke bombs at police without being arrested. The only people arrested in Ferguson were journalists and a handful of out of state looter. To deny children healthy food because he thinks he sounds clever reminds me of the people of Westboro Baptist Church.
To try and help parents get the facts about the dangers of feeding pasteurized milk to their children is a noble and good effort, so take another look at the data or lack there of. It is a personal choice to drink raw milk, however, given the increased risk to die for a slight increase in vitamins: Pasteurized milk is heated for a short time, hot enough to kill potentially deadly bacteria.
Google it as I did: Pasteurization only slightly decreases some minerals found in milk. Note it does this slightly. I found this reference on this very site that validates this information:. Drinking unpasteurized milk significantly increases your chances of becoming very ill for a slight increase in already minimal mineral quantities. A human diet does not rely on milk to get the affected minerals into your diet.
CommonSenseBen, it sometimes takes more than just common sense. Kids who drink raw milk have less asthma, allergies Reuters http: Pasteurization only slightly decreases some nutrients found on the label of a carton of milk. The CDC has never documented a death from raw drinking milk. Ben, you are quoting statements not facts. Pasteurized milk is heated for a short time, hot enough to destroy enzymes that oxidized milk fat after homogenization. Pasteurization is not sterilization.
Your so called foodborne pathogens are everywhere. They are in us on us and on everything we touch. Raw milk is the least likely place to look for them. These bacteria are said to cause diarrhea in some people some of the time.
Raw milk can be a complete human diet. Unpasteurized milk is seasonal and only occasionally tastes better. Sometimes it tastes worse. Your hospitalizations are associated with raw milk. They are not caused by raw milk. Milk is not just minerals.
Your statistical analysis is hilarious! After all your pandering and misdirection; the fact remains that you are 13 times more likely to be hospitalized by raw milk.
Even without knowing the facts, nobody is going to live on milk, not if they want to live healthily. That said, if you believe the twin towers was a government conspiracy; if you believe that cansema works, I recommend to you the drinking of raw milk.
CommonSenseBen, These statistics are not mutually exclusive. In America a government agency like the CDC works for the people and the people are make up of various producers and consumers. These entities will always be at odds.
At least your honest. Because people who drink raw milk would have the same percentage of contracting other food borne illnesses as the rest of the population in ADDITION to illness from drinking raw milk. Therefore raw milk drinkers have an even higher likelihood of contracting food borne illnesses. Many of these so called pathogens are part of our bodies normal flora.
The Government statistics I quoted show that raw milk prevents illness. For the most part driving and flying is a necessity and you would be severely inconvenienced by not doing so. John, no one lives for ever.
Being young or old poses many risks. Having a baby poses risk of complication. Entering a hospital for any reason poses risk of infection or medical mistake. Since when is life about reducing risk and inconvenience?
Some of our most dangerous and inconvenient activities involve having fun. So then, is life about increasing risk? How does fun come into play?
Drinking raw milk as opposed to Pasteurized milk is more fun? For the most part driving and flying is NOT a necessity and you would be severely inconvenienced by not eating. Listen John, you will get nowhere with Mike. A foolish person, he bashes the CDC and its data in one post and then relies on their data to support another.
Just a milk-covered mouth and a meow is all you get—everything else is nonsense. Sounds like you have a problem with data. Yes, but from what?
Infant mortality has been very high in this country. Life expectancy for men is You should read them more carefully. Thank you for not wasting anymore of my time. My brother is a dairy farmer in NZ. I took RAW milk from his farm to make chocolate milks. I got campylobacter and if I was young 75 I would have died!!! Raw milk is not worth the risk people. Take it from me. I was extremely ill for 4 weeks.
I was 11 stone and went down to 7 vomiting, diarrhoea, hallucinations, sweats etc etc. Worst month of my life. Stool samples were finally taken, farm was the origin, because we took RAW milk from it. Not supposed to as all NZ dairy products are pasteurised. Babies and elderly will die from unpasteurised milk, be warned…FDA know what they are talking about…. I was 21 years of age and healthy enough to fight the massive infection that took hold of my entire body.
You could have gotten it anywhere or it could have been in your body all along. This is what you said: And Prince Charles has never undressed himself and his shoelaces are ironed for him. There are those who believe healthy food is only for the rich. Are you one of those people Gary? I thought I was still talking to John. How would you come to that conclusion?
I am pointing out the absurdity of saying if the royals do it, it must be good. What do you think? I would be notifying the dairy regulatory body in NZ if I were you. Dairy farms, especially ones that are producing what is regarded as a higher quality product, should be properly managed. There are strict guidelines a dairy farmer has to follow when taking care of the cows and the milk once extracted, all the way to the vat….
I grew up on a dairy farm and I know many others who did and there are hundreds of thousands of kids grow up on cows milk before it reaches any stage of pasteurizing. Is there a dairy regulatory body in NZ that cares about the quality of raw drinking milk? What people need to realize is milk is very sensitive to sunlight. Leave your milk out on the bench with sun shining on it and it will degrade very quickly.
The only real advantage of having milk pasteurized and homogenized is a longer shelf life which benefits the manufacturer and delivery process. All the goodness is taken out at that point. This allows for greater profit and less waste so the powdered milk and other products are made from what has been taken from the milk…….
Lance, you are right on the money. Although I have heard that the only real advantage of having milk pasteurized is that it prevents butter fat from going rancid oxidize within hours of being homogenized.
Do you see these hundreds of tankers coming into the large city milk providers plants in cities. Only a few come in with the concentrated milk product. Smaller collection points in rural centers do the separation process and then send on the concentrated parts to the varying process plants, eg: Shop milk is not really milk at all………. Homogenised pasteurised milk from any supermarket goes bad much quicker.
He told me this:. The raw milk I do sell Organic Pastures has raw unpasteurized organic milk that is safe. So, when trying to determine which is healthier, compare safe brands of each. Fact is, pasteurized milk gives me hay fever, but non-pasteurized milk does not. Most raw milk in California is sold farm direct from very small high quality operations.
Organic Pastures was blamed for an outbreak once and was shut down but as usual no contamination was ever found. Nothing can stop the health department from blaming raw milk or any food for cases of diarrhea and there will never be a shortage of cases. The average America gets diarrhea 4 times a year. Hey, raw milk cured my hay fever to. Raw milk has been the norm in India since ages. At home in India , we had a milkman who delivered raw milk every morning and my mom would boil the milk for 10 minutes.
The milk creates a thick cream layer on top which was collected and accumulated to make butter and saturated butter Ghee from it later. When i moved to Canada the distance between my food and the food provider expanded to the extent I dont know where my milk comes from , which farm or factory, I dont know which farms the vegetables come from.
Drinking raw milk is a personal choice but in my opinion people in north america who have been cushioned against bacteria with modern age medicines may not have natural immunity for raw milk consumption. Homogenization is worse than pasteurization but boiling milk for ten minutes is worse than pasteurization.
People in the city are exposed to more of these so called food-borne pathogens that cows on the farm. Antibiotics do not protect us from these bacteria. Do all Indians boil their milk? We all generally boil milk first and then drink it. Its a common practice in India. And as far I know, there has been not a single case of any side effect from boiling the milk.
And because of the fact that even today in small town people buy milk from milkman they always prefer to boil it first and then use it. It seems you start your reasoning with data from pasteurized dairy products, i. I am a cheese maker. Originally, I got on this site to get information about using raw milk in cheese making. Raw milk cheese was the norm for me when I lived in England and it still is, in many parts of Europe.
I got what I set out to get and thank those whose posts helped me to clear things up. But, to be honest, the bickering and mindless opinions are things I can do without. Above commenter is correct. The benefits you receive from raw vs pasteurized milk is simply not worth the risk. Illnesses from dairy are low because they are Pasteurized! If it was widespread that americans consumed raw dairy products that number would go way up.
And for what purpose? The above commenter is either selling very low quality processed foods or very expensive drugs. J is obviously not familiar with the benefits of raw milk. Raw milk has demonstrated a negative risk factor. Illness from pasteurized dairy has proven to be extremely high even before you consider the so called food-borne illnesses associated with it. I was on board with most of what you were saying yeah right, American diet is so nutritious…LOL.
You lost me when you said if everyone drank raw milk doctors would be out of work. Are you saying raw milk is not a healthy food? Your criticism brings to mind It is hogwash, the industrial farming and bags of antibiotics that are causing problems. Did you also post and say ouch about: All foodborne illness outbreaks are mire mathematical associations.
They are not base on empirical evidence. The author himself provides the data that shows that raw milk is extremely dangerous. However, earlier he says that This means, according to his data, there are , actual illnesses each year caused by unpasteurized milk.
Raw milk may be preventing 1. Or in other words: So when he said CDC estimates that According to CDC data, and their estimation that According to CDC data there are actually 1. Mike, Could you please list the source for your fact stating 1. Charles, Nobody is convinced by a single article you posted above, except maybe the feeble minded and gullible. Which I guess is what you and those of your ilk are counting on. They are rubbish, misguided or purposeful propaganda put out by big Diary and formula manufactures.
Where is your bs detector? But keep trying to rob woman of the healthful benefits of raw diary and steer them in the direction of denatured and dangerous boiled ruined milk and garbage milkshake like baby formula. You are actually harming a lot of woman and children with your posts. Just stop and find a real worthwhile cause to put all your energy behind. You are so obstinate. I bet your would rather give up a limb than let go of your dogma on raw milk for babies and pregnant women.
You are so entrenched in your position that you scour the Internet tirelessly looking for any source or person who agrees with you and then post your misguided pseudo science articles or outright fabricated lies.
Charles, just because you read it on the Internet does not make it true. Where is your BS detector and your street smarts! Sweet Mellisa, if you opt to concoct raw milk formula mixtures for your baby, that is your business. Here are a few web sites for mothers considering options that provide a little food for thought.
Ladies, please do your research before you put an ideology before common sense. Everyone knows raw breast milk is best unless the mother is vegan or on crack. We are talking about raw cows milk vs powdered baby formula. Food safety attorney Bill Marler saw an opportunity to pull together a team of journalists — Food Safety News. The International Food Information Council — Our vision is a global environment where credible science drives food policy and consumer choice.
I am a British cheese maker living in Japan. I started making cheese at home with store bought pasteurised homogenised milk. I found that it is possible to make cheese from store bought milk and it can even taste quite good.
Then I got hold of raw full cream milk, pasteurised it and made cheese. Encouraged by this and other articles on raw milk, I decided to make a batch with milk straight from the cows. Everything went so fast. With MUCH less culture, the pH dropped very quickly and with much less rennet and no calcium chloride at all, I got a great set and the taste 60 days later brought tears to my eyes.
This is the cheese I used to eat when I was a child in England, 50 years ago. Do you drink raw milk? What do you think of the 60 day rule in the US.? Does the taste of cheese improve with age?
Does it get sharper with age? Do you think some people could prefer the taste of a younger cheese? When does it become cheese? Very rarely, but then I only rarely drink milk. I prefer soy or almond milk for drinking. I do, however, make cheese with raw milk, as I wrote above. Well, it depends what cheese it is.
Hard cheeses usually do, but keeping them for longer than six months requires careful attention to temperature and humidity.
I think the sharpness is more to do with the culture used and the time taken for incubation. There are also different types of sharpness. Cheddar made with raw milk has a special kind of sharpness that is truly wonderful. Strong, but not sour. Not unlike a good cup of tea, brewed for just the right amount of time with milk and no sugar. Each person has their own taste. Our ricotta made with full cream fresh milk is to die for! This does not age. As soon as you separate the curds from the whey.
Some cheeses can be eaten as soon as they are made and others, like Parmesan, are aged two or more years. Why do you prefer soy or almond milk for drinking? Most of us need some sort of health food to stay healthy. I personally avoid synthetic versions of Vitamin A like the plague.
Vitamin D2 is a form of the wonder vitamin that you should take great pains to avoid. By comparison, Vitamin D3 is much less toxic and requires an enormous or even an accidental dose to produce any toxic effect. Vitamin D2 is manufactured industrially by irradiating yeast. It is dangerous for D2 to be added to any food product particularly if this product would be given to children, where toxicity symptoms would appear at much lower dosages.
None of the store brands of cartoned coconut milk or almond milk were free of these dangerous and synthetic versions of the fat soluble vitamins! Notice also that carrageenan is present in 2 of the 3 products as well! Andrew Weil has been telling people to avoid carrageenan since Carrageenan is so toxic and inflaming to the human digestive system that this food additive is formally classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as a potential human carcinogen.
There have been 10 deaths associated with pasteurized dairy products in the last decade. The 2 deaths you may be thinking of were associated with cheese not the drinking of raw fluid milk.
A must read article on the subject of raw milk safety. Good deprogramming information for the brainwashed. I will add though, that I am not paid by nor associated with anybody.
Everything I said came from far more authoritative sources than myself, and I cite them! Mark, you clearly have a horse in this race, a great big one—you own one among the largest raw milk dairies in the country. After researching you and Organic Pastures, it looks like government recalls are a regular part of your operations.
Here is a Mother Jones article as one example, but there are plenty others. And to say we should dismiss the weight of information based on the CDC admitting a mistake is ridiculous. Given your interests, your opinion is little more than an advertisement. Cary, regarding me being a tool, see above. Otherwise, offer something constructive to a debate. My goal has been to raise enough awareness so mothers reading here, wondering if they should give their children raw milk—and yes, raw milk cheese—will research the subject more carefully.
If I have done that for just one of them, I can say I did what I set out to do, all by my lonesome. A persons authority does not give them credibility when they are a competitor. When I buy farm direct I compete with the distributor, when I buy raw that hurts the processor and so on. As you say, these people have a horse in this race. It makes no sense to site an accusation from a competitor when their own data does not support their position.
When I point this out they promptly change the subject or start name calling. The anti-raw milk argument convects itself. The fact that you call your sources authoritative suggests that you have no facts. Charles, we need more people like you in this world. I respect your research and evidence-based information. Charles, You are not responding to any of the points that I have made.
Changing the subject to cheese when we are talking about the safety of raw milk most certainly is a red herring. Talk about pregnant women being prone to diarrhea of unknown origin when we are talking about diarrhea associated with raw milk is also a red herring. The pasteurization of milk is the subject so how is that a red herring? The definition of raw milk is unpasteurized milk. We are not talking about raw milk products. Pasteurized milk is a raw milk product. You and I both know all they mean is that these people may have consumed raw milk within the last 3 months and that is all that they mean.
Thanks for your honesty. My point is that raw milk has a negative risk factor. I challenged the CDC to provide me any evidence of death by raw milk since Any evidence of listeria monocytogenes causing illness from raw milk. Any evidence of pregnancy being effected by raw milk since Under FOIA, they were not able to provide any evidence as requested.
In fact they denied any listeria associated with raw milk. No deaths from raw milk. All listeria was associated with processed milk…that is right, the processors blame raw milk conveniently when they screw up pasteurization. When considering raw milk safety, also consider that different types bacteria have been found in human breast milk including many of the same bad bugs also found in cows raw milk!
Babies over 6 months of age are perhaps the greatest age group to gain the greatest value from raw milk. When we speak of raw milk, we mean tested, low risk raw milk that is intended for human consumption. Not any old raw milk intended for pasteurization. The FDA and processors have intentionally confused the two kinds of raw milk. To see the best standards in the world and the test data to back it up…see http: Dang Mike, I just posted a list of organizations who have answered your question, along with quotes and I posted a link to an excellent article that includes more links, etc.
You cannot reasonably discuss something if you completely ignore evidence. If I was an objective individual which I am and researched the information you and Mark provided and compared them with the body of evidence easily found, there is no way I would give my child raw milk…no way.
Why take such a foolish risk? There is no evidence making its potential benefits outweigh its risks.