Guidelines & known science aren’t a direct connection to individual choices and actions. The fact that people in the US choose to ignore or act directly against the known info related to nutrition science doesn’t mean the science is bad. It means people like to eat what & how much they want. Humans being humans, and we know that we choose the “wrong” thing plenty of times despite knowing better.
Parallel to the smoking tangent, we still see people taking up smoking today despite incontrovertible evidence that it is poison and a nearly guaranteed trip to cancer and other ailments. This is right there with nutrition and people with diabetes, obesity and such.
None of those bad choices negate the reality that the science is clear and general expectations of a broader public are known. But just as there are ranges of experience in the bell curve, some smokers live a full life without cancer and others eat terribly while avoiding those common problems. But those singular experiences don’t eliminate the knowledge and very real statistics that show there is notable risk for many people broadly speaking.
That all seems quite parallel to the raw milk side here with people like you having fine experiences, but there is plenty of real risk on a broader scale.
Actually that is not my argument. There are certain things where there is scientific consensus. Smoking causing cancer, human activity accelerating global warming, evolution, and yes, the dangers of drinking unpasteurized milk, are all things where there is scientific consensus. Here is a helpful link that explains what that term means and why it’s important (I have no affiliation to the site in the link).
Being skeptical of claims is generally a good thing and is the basis for the scientific method. Denying science where there is clear scientific consensus (please read the definition on the site referred to above before replying), is generally not a good thing. Unless you are an expert in an area of science, that has found some way to disprove hundreds of studies, and you have the evidence to back up your claims, scientific denial leads to the anti-vax movement, climate change denial, smoking isn’t bad for you, type of thinking.
Several people presented you with multiple published, peer reviewed studies and meta-analyses which all show the dangers of drinking raw milk. There are MANY more studies (hundreds) available showing the same thing. If after all that you want to continue drinking raw milk despite the evidence showing its dangers, be my guest. Your anecdotes do not convince me, nor should they convince anyone else to reconsider the mountain of evidence against your conclusion.
And in one short paragraph, you’ve utterly and absolutely destroyed any credibility you might have hoped to have.
Assuming you do actually believe this, I can only beg you to seriously question your sources of data, news, and education. Unless you have (as it seems) already burrowed deeply into a silo of misinformation and cultlike distrust of other viewpoints, it should not be hard to discover why that statement is so appallingly, stunningly wrong and so harmful to all of society.
Thank you for the discussion on organic foods! There is SOOO much (to be generous) misguided info out there from folks who don’t understand agriculture, don’t understand chemistry, don’t understand medicine, and don’t understand nutrition that it seems like it is a constant battle just to correct misinformation from partisan groups like EWG, much less to give consumers an accurate picture of how their food really is produced and processed.
FWIW, three things to consider when you evaluate food production:
Most farmers live on the land they work. We eat what we grow, drink water from the local water table, and intend to leave our farms to our children, so we have every incentive to use the healthiest practices available. We want our farms to continue producing for generations to come, just as they were producing for generations before us.
Pesticides (organic or conventional) are expensive. Nobody is using more chemical than they need to.
Organic crops typically yield substantially less than conventional crops. If you are eating organic because you want to save the planet, please know that your organic produce required more land, more water, more pesticide, more fuel, and more man hours than the same crop grown conventionally.
I suspect I’m in a tiny minority of TR users who train, race, AND farm, but I suspect I speak for all of us when I say thank you for encouraging people to find accurate sources of information and view marketing claims with a skeptical eye.
On a related note, the last several podcasts have been consistently great. I really appreciate it when you dive into the literature, and a detailed discussion of published research is the main thing that keeps me coming back to the TR podcast. Keep up the great work!
The problem is with marketing. Raw milk is 100% as healthy and safe as pasteurized - at the dairy. The problem comes when it leaves the farm. Pasteurized milk is much more tolerant of temperature variation, and easier for distributors and grocers to safely handle. If raw milk is handled improperly, it is much more likely to spoil.
Crux of the matter: If you are buying your raw milk directly from a dairy you know and trust, then enjoy it in good health. But if you don’t know the dairy that produced the milk, don’t know the distributor that handled the milk, and don’t know the grocery where you bought the milk (and don’t know the process well enough to know what is safe at each step between cow and you), play it safe and drink pasteurized.
I often wonder when stuff like this happens… When @Nate_Pearson started TrainerRoad, did he ever think he’d be hosting a forum in which raw milk (as an example) was being debated.
I’ve been a listener since episode 1 and haven’t missed an episode. I thoroughly enjoy the podcast. Thanks for the great content!
Here’s a general comment on recent episodes. I hope this is the right thread.
I keep hearing “fuel the work” and “eat more” and while this might be good advice for many listeners, what about those of us who love to eat… perhaps a bit too much?
Here’s what happens to me: I’m at a good weight and my belt fits well, but then I hear “eat more” on the podcast. Without realising it, I start consuming as many calories as I burn during my workouts, plus extra food off the bike, putting me over my daily calorie balance (workouts included) by 1,000 kcals for several days. I need to go up a notch in my belt. I then get my eating back under control. But then I hear “fuel the work” on TrainerRoad, and the loop starts again!
So next time you say “fuel the work” @Jonathan spare a thought for us cyclists who love to eat… maybe a bit too much.
P.S. I heard an episode of the Fast Talk Femmes Podcast* with Dr. Allen Lim as a guest, and he mentioned that for 3-7 hour workouts/rides, you should eat 50% of the kcal burned. For less than 3 hours, you hardly need to consume at all (around 52 minute mark). I would find that hard to do—I love my gels! Sometimes the only reason I get on the bike is to eat gels guilt free.
*Fast Talk Femmes Podcast: An Athlete’s Guide to Gut Health with Dr. Allen Lim - Fast Talk
Sometimes the only reason I get on the bike is to eat gels guilt free.