I think yogurt is a great example of the problem. In its more natural form it is healthy, particularly as a probiotic with live cultures and enzymes.
But that’s not what the majority of yogurts sold in stores are, they are heated and pasteurized killing live cultures, and then loaded with sugar added. It’s this yogurt product that more closely resembles a desert than a healthy yogurt that is bought/consumed and marketed as a health food.
It’s very similar to the majority of breakfast cereals, probably never as healthy as yogurt to begin with, but a bastardization of the “cereal grains” they are named after.
Yes, but even among those there is some deception.
Take Yoplait, it is made with pasteurized milk, so it doesn’t have the naturally occurring cultures. Like the added sugar they just add cultures/probiotics in, what’s important in this is that there are 1000s of species of probiotics and “added probiotics” is not the same as naturally occurring probiotics, which are generally limited to just a few species. In other words it’s a marketing stunt to market “probiotics” as if it were natural, but to reuse the word it is a bastardization of naturally occurring cultures.
Where are you getting unpasteurized milk that you could make yogurt with it? I don't know anyone who has eaten yogurt made from raw cow's milk and wouldn't know where to get it.
That’s the point, the yogurt purchased in stores is processed to the point it loses the very benefits that make yogurt “healthy.”
To answer your specific question, farmers that have dairy cows. It’s not so common these days, but neither is healthy yogurt. Another example of a probiotic food would be kimchi, which in the US most people probably purchase in stores (pasteurized), but in SKorea many make at home so it’s raw with naturally occurring cultures and enzymes.
Yogurt from “raw milk” doesn’t even make any sense. The pasteurization step during yogurt production isn’t to make the milk safe for consumption. It’s to kill the other bacteria so the one that is deliberately introduced can thrive.
Yogurt has been around for thousands of years, pasteurized milk for less than 200.
And yes the pasteurization of milk is to make it safe and it’s required by law in the US (if the milk/yogurt crosses state lines, interstate commerce).
You are right in that yogurt made with raw milk, the bacteria of the raw milk will typically overtake the bacteria introduced for the fermentation. Now we have come full circle to the point that modern store bought yogurt doesn’t have the same health benefits.
This may all sound counterintuitive that milk is pasteurized for health/safety reasons but pasteurized milk/yogurt doesn’t contain the health benefits of raw milk, or yogurt made from raw milk, but it’s rather straight forward: it contains health benefits but simultaneously potential risks.
Depends on the animal, but in general milk is nutrient dense, contains fat, protein, carbs, vitamins and minerals.
Like all dietary/nutrition sciences there are plenty of studies for both sides of arguments (e.g. coffee is healthy/unhealthy, eggs are healthy/unhealthy), so you can easily find studies that contradict the benefits of bacteria in raw milk (certainly there is a potential safety risk) but here’s an NIH study supporting raw milk’s association with promotion of bacteria in the microbiome beneficial to physical/mental outcomes: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7285075/
> Like all dietary/nutrition sciences there are plenty of studies for both sides of arguments (e.g. coffee is healthy/unhealthy, eggs are healthy/unhealthy), so you can easily find studies that contradict the benefits of bacteria in raw milk (certainly there is a potential safety risk)
Apparently not, as per the study you linked to.
"To our knowledge, there are no studies exploring the impact of unpasteurised milk intake on the gut microbiome."
> here’s an NIH study
It isn't an NIH study, it was done in Ireland.
"This research received no specific external funding but authors are supported in part by the Science Foundation Ireland in the form of a center grant (Alimentary Pharmabiotic Centre Grant number SFI/12/RC/2273)."
> raw milk’s association with promotion of bacteria in the microbiome beneficial to physical/mental outcomes
The study was selection of 24 people out of a group that paid to spend 12 days on an organic farm in Ireland learning how to cook from a celebrity chef. During the stay they drank unpasteurized milk and ate fresh farm food and at the end had more lactobacillus in their fecal matter and some of them reported less anxiety. Unfortunately, I don't see much value in this data.
Follow the logic for the specific examples I gave, you will find studies where eggs are healthy/unhealthy and coffee is healthy/unhealthy
I provided a study that concluded there’s an association between raw milk and microbiome health resulting in positive physical/mental outcomes.
You clearly asked in bad faith, as I said generally raw milk is nutrient dense a significant source of fat, protein, carbs, vitamins and minerals. Unlike pasteurized milk that kills the good bacteria and enzymes, store bought milk removes much of the fat and adds sugar, it’s not the same product from a nutrient perspective.
Regarding the microbiome study, based on your objections, you wouldn’t be satisfied with any microbiome studies, nearly every microbiome study will be funded by a source you would find objectionable to fit your narrative whatever that might be, so I fail to understand your point besides being strangely argumentative on HN. Feel free to search the plethora of studies yourself.
You stated more than a few times that raw milk has health benefits. You did not say 'it may have health benefits' or 'I believe there are benefits' you said 'the health benefits of raw milk'.
Asking someone to a follow up for a statement of fact is not bad faith, and saying that it is, is just an attempt to shift me into some kind of villain so you get an escape hatch.
If you don't know what they are, say that. But to google a study that you don't bother to read and get super defensive when confronted about the fact that it is meaningless is childish.
I’ve posted about this before and gotten downvoted, but, yeah, the Nova definitions are problematic. I think the issue is the data clearly shows something or somethings are causing problems, but nobody really knows what the troublesome ingredients are, or if any individual ingredients are problematic at all:
* Is it the emulsifiers? Sounds plausible, but hasn’t been proven
* Is it the high calorie density/ease of chewing? Sounds plausible, but hasn’t been proven.
* Is it <insert pet theory here>? That, too, probably sounds plausible, but hasn’t been proven.
* Is it just the A/B testing? After a few rounds of optimizing for “do people eat more of substance a or substance b”, does it even matter what the ingredients are? Sounds plausible, but hasn’t been proven.
Meanwhile, to pick on one single example, you have jams in the Nova database that are “ultra processed” because they contain ”added” pectin.
The last time I brought this up, someone responded that they made homemade jam without adding any pectin at all, just by cooking the fruit for longer. So, clearly, Big Jam is making Frankenfood Jam by adding artificial pectin to thicken their product.
You’ll never guess how you extract pectin from fruit: apply heat.
