or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Natural Living › Nutrition and Good Eating › Traditional Foods › Paleo/NT, Is Eating Dairy Natural?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Paleo/NT, Is Eating Dairy Natural? - Page 5

post #81 of 127
Quote:
Untill I decided to do an elimination diet just to know what it feels like ( since I was recommending them to my clients left and right).
Tanya - Would you mind posting how you did the elimination diet ? (ie., I know what they are, but for how long you have to eliminate things, and if you have to eliminate dairy/wheat at the same time or separately...)

Although this thread is very interesting, it's a bit like discussing religion or politics , so I think the only true way to know for sure is for each of us to try what you tried ! Then we'll find the real answer for ourselves...

Thanks,
Diane
post #82 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharondio View Post
Except there is growing evidence that many diseases we thought were not caused by infection, actually are. Tooth decay has been shown to be related to bacterial levels in the mouth sometimes passed between people. Ulcers are from a bacterial infection. Cervical cancer is caused by HPV.
Even if that was true, why do you think they were vulnerable to bacteria infections in the first place? It is because if you follow a poor diet, you set up a vulnerable environment for "bad" microorganisms to thrive.

read here for more info: http://www.unhinderedliving.com/germtheory.html

Most of the diseases in modern society today are not caused by the "pathogenic bacteria" that enter from outside us, as was taught by Pasteur. Disease occurs as these endobionts are transformed from the microbe stage to more virulent forms of life. The state of development of these organisms depends upon the state of the medium in which the germ lives. In other words, the microbes which live in our cells and assist the cells in maintaining a healthy state will mutate into bacteria, fungus, and viruses when the tissues of our bodies in which they live change to provide a medium for their growth. They begin to become "pathogenic" when the pH of the tissues becomes more acidic.
post #83 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by yllek View Post
I guess i just have a hard time understanding why one would need to resolve the question about what we are "intended" or "meant to" do? Intended by what?

Dairy has been a part of the human diet in many parts of the world for thousands of years. There is no such thing as a universally perfect food, and evolution didn't produce an end-product. There is a ton of variation among all of us. Some people will not tolerate certain foods that are just fine for others. Maybe a Paleodiet would say that we are "intended" to eat nuts. My ds is not - he's allergic to them. Some people thrive on dairy; others may not. As omnivores (and relatively successful ones from a population viewpoint), we are "intended" to experiment with our food sources. If we find a source of nutrition that works, why not go with it?

If you believe that dairy causes cancer, heart disease and diabetes, then certainly avoid it. But I seem to recall that herding and agriculture were concomitant developments, along with a lot of other lifestyle changes, and no single factor causes any of those diseases. You can find many examples of folks who consume dairy in great quantities and never develop those diseases. Furthermore, my understanding is that these are relatively modern diseases that are rampant predominantly in the Western world, and according to old medical literature, they were not common even in the West until the 20th century.

: Jumping in here.

NOT everyone were herders and drank milk. Why do you think so much of the world is lactose intolerant? Drinking milk/eating cheese/butter was reserved pretty much to Europeans.

I do not believe eating dairy is natural. DD is allergic and just about everyone in our family has issues with it. Obviously our bodies are trying to tell us something. Consuming a drink laden with pus and hormones isn't the best thing for your body.

Just like some cultures eat tons of grains and have great health. Some eat no grains and have great health. I believe there is a genetic/environmental link that is more important than reverting back to what we ate thousands of years ago when most people died before middle age.
post #84 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by dnw826 View Post
: Jumping in here.

NOT everyone were herders and drank milk. Why do you think so much of the world is lactose intolerant? Drinking milk/eating cheese/butter was reserved pretty much to Europeans.
As I am of European descent, I'm not sure of your point. I think it's clear that if you're lactose intolerant, milk-drinking is probably not for you. But even among dairy peoples, drinking of raw, uncultured milk was likely rare as milk culture naturally in a very short period of time before refridgeration.

Quote:
I do not believe eating dairy is natural. DD is allergic and just about everyone in our family has issues with it. Obviously our bodies are trying to tell us something. Consuming a drink laden with pus and hormones isn't the best thing for your body.
And I do not believe vegan is natural. Of those vegetarian cultures, almost all of them included some sort of animal protein, even if it was just in the way of bugs. Only very recently have people been able to avoid animal products to the degree that Vegans do.

I drink only organic milk. No hormones. What you call pus, I call antibodies.

Quote:
Just like some cultures eat tons of grains and have great health. Some eat no grains and have great health. I believe there is a genetic/environmental link that is more important than reverting back to what we ate thousands of years ago when most people died before middle age.
I agree. As much as we might hail the almight hunter-gatherer diet, the simple fact remains that we cannot become hunter-gatherers. My neighbors might complain when I went browsing for edible roots in their garden!
post #85 of 127
This is a fascinating thread! I am fairly new to traditional foods, am reading Price's book and leafing through NT here and there. And now I stumble onto a discussion of paleo vs neolithic eating. Very, very interesting. Although it doesn't make me feel any less overwhelmed . Where and how to begin making changes :.

Anyway, a few pages back, someone included a quote that discussed the potential fallacy of just looking at average life spans. Here is part of that quote:

Quote:
To illustrate, if 50 percent of people die in infancy, and 50 percent live to 80 years, the average life span will only be 40. But when only those who lived past childhood are taken into account, people in 1900 had the same life expectancy as we do today; many lived to 70 and older. By improving sanitation and bringing down the infant mortality, we have created the illusion that adults are living longer. Once out of childhood, our potential life span has not really changed in at least 3000 years.
Fascinating information. Marie, or anyone else in the know, I was wondering if you could talk about this with respect to the paleolithic population? What were lifespans like during that time? What about when you don't take into account infant mortality? Or death from things that probably wouldn't cause death today (e.g., injuries, etc.). A common argument is that "ancient" people didn't suffer from modern diseases because they didn't live long enough. Does this hold any water? Or is there evidence to show that paleolithic peoples frequently lived lengthy, healthy lives?

And I just wanted to clarify one thing ... Marie, I believe you stated that diseases such as diabetes, cancer, etc., could be detected in bones. Can you confirm that this is true? I like to have my ducks in a row for when I share this info with others .

I'll take my answers off the air .
post #86 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by *Di View Post
Tanya - Would you mind posting how you did the elimination diet ? (ie., I know what they are, but for how long you have to eliminate things, and if you have to eliminate dairy/wheat at the same time or separately...)
Sure .. But first of all...I spend ALOT of time with clients, an intake is 3 hours..and so I get a rather complete picture of a person, and their potential allergies. i also have people bring a food/mood journal on the first visit and that also helps alot. I usualy have an idea which food a person is alleric to and so recommend elim diets for only one food at a time. I am often right, but not always A great question to ask ( or ask yourself) is: what food do you not think you can do with out? What do you eat everyday and just love? What food would be the hardest to give up? The answer is usually the food they are allergic to. Sad, so sad, but true . This has to do with adrenal hormones that are released if a person eats their allergen, you get addicted to those...

Anyway...the very short version of how I recommend elimination diets: strictly eliminate the food ( I usually do one at the time) for 6 weeks ( the bare, bare minimum I feel is 3)Then on monday of the 7th week eat a bunch of the suspected allergen, then abstain again tuesday and wednesday and eat the food again on Thursday, with in a few minutes to a few days you should get a reaction if you are allergic. Reactions can be very many things: gas, belching, bloading, stomach pain, diarrhea, constipation, nausea or any other gi symptoms, mood swings, nervousness, depression, anxiety, hyperactivity, sleep issues or any other mood stuff and/or musculoskeletal issues like sore joints, stiffness, pain...

Tanya
post #87 of 127
Tanya-Did you work for Recovery Systems by any chance?
post #88 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by marieandchris View Post
But as adult palaeolithic people, we would've lost our source of milk for good, and that is why our ability to generate the enzymes to process it go away. There might be a small variation in who produces enzymes by where your ancestry is from, but the enzymes are made for you to ingest MOM'S milk, not cows milk
Back up--you lost me there. Assuming I'm one of those people who has the milk-digesting enzymes as an adult, does this mean I'm intended to (so to speak) be drinking human milk as an adult? I recognize that cow and human milk are very different, but I don't understand why I would have hypothetically developed the ability to retain these enzymes if I weren't going to drink animal milk as an adult.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dnw826
NOT everyone were herders and drank milk. Why do you think so much of the world is lactose intolerant? Drinking milk/eating cheese/butter was reserved pretty much to Europeans.
I'm pretty sure this isn't completely true. There are examples of milk-drinking cultures in both Africa and to a much lesser extent in Asia, although admittedly not to the extent we see in European culture (and often it would not be cow's milk). Your broader point is probably still accurate, but I just wanted to clarify.

Of course, pace Tcarwyn's post, I could just be in denial. . . .

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tcarwyn
A great question to ask ( or ask yourself) is: what food do you not think you can do with out? What do you eat everyday and just love? What food would be the hardest to give up? The answer is usually the food they are allergic to. Sad, so sad, but true .
post #89 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by phroggies View Post
I'm pretty sure this isn't completely true. There are examples of milk-drinking cultures in both Africa and to a much lesser extent in Asia, although admittedly not to the extent we see in European culture (and often it would not be cow's milk). Your broader point is probably still accurate, but I just wanted to clarify.
On a similar note, it is my understanding that cow's milk has been sacred to a variety of tribal/earth based religions in many parts of the world.

And I also could have sworn reading somewhere along the line that human milk has been used for healing for centuries as well (point being perhaps not every human of the paleolithic era had a complete lack of milk past toddlerhood).

As far as the pus argument . . . if I believed the milk of any species was pus-laden in such a negative sense I'd hardly be breastfeeding a baby and a toddler right now. As a previous poster pointed out "pus" would be full of antibodies. Pus can be pretty widely defined. As far as actual diseased milk from mastitis-suffering cows - that's a factory farming thing and I think if you're gonna get into that kind of argument, you'll have to talk to people who don't go out of their way to avoid animal products from mistreated animals. NT is not about eating whatever animal products you can find. It's an extremely selective philosophy that involves biodynamic growth.
post #90 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by phroggies View Post
Back up--you lost me there. Assuming I'm one of those people who has the milk-digesting enzymes as an adult, does this mean I'm intended to (so to speak) be drinking human milk as an adult? I recognize that cow and human milk are very different, but I don't understand why I would have hypothetically developed the ability to retain these enzymes if I weren't going to drink animal milk as an adult.
I hesitate to enter this discussion, because frankly I'm weary of the argument over what's "natural" for humans. However, the above quote reminds me that I want to mention something I read recently (in the past year) that may be pertinent, and I'm sorry to say I don't remember the source. It was talking about a study (I think, not just speculation) showing that there's a much higher likelihood of retaining the ability to produce lactase (and therefore digest lactose) if a person continues to ingest lactose-containing dairy products past the age of weaning, throughout older childhood and into adulthood, without significant interruption. Those who do not consume lactose during the still-formative older childhood years are more likely to lose the ability to produce lactose, permanently.

***Warning, personal speculation to follow***This seems to me to be adaptation to life-long dairy consumption on an individual level, not just a species level. If it's present as a significant portion of the diet, physiologically the assumption is made that it's worthwhile to continue to devote resources to adequately digest and assimilate it (I think of things like this as physical intelligence). Some people maybe just don't have the potential to produce lactase past weaning, but some - perhaps descended from populations with a history of dairy as a significant source of nutrition - have the ability that can either be maintained via consumption of lactose past weaning into adulthood, or lost for good if dairy is no longer a part of the diet past weaning. It makes sense to me that the body would continue to produce lactase if prompted by the presence of lactose in the diet, but if lactose consumption stops for an appreciable amount of time (years, say) then the body would no longer dedicate the resources to produce lactase.

FWIW, I've never had any trouble digesting dairy products. My ancestry is mostly Northern European/British Isles. And I love dairy of all kinds, so perhaps I'm in denial as well, but I really don't think so.
post #91 of 127
Okay, I was staying away from this thread, because I am feeling that the "what is natural for humans" discussion was getting a little pointless, but I had to respond to this point by dnw826: (how does everyone get people's names to show up in the quote box?)
Quote:
NOT everyone were herders and drank milk. Why do you think so much of the world is lactose intolerant? Drinking milk/eating cheese/butter was reserved pretty much to Europeans.
So not true. Dairy is a staple in India and Pakistan. Lots of dairy in the Middle East (from cow and goat and I *think* sheep). Many groups in Africa are herders and drink milk. Yak milk is a staple ingredient in Tibet. You'd think that in East Asia there wasn't any dairy, but my mom grew up in a rural area of Korea. Until she moved to Seoul, she had goat milk almost everyday while the goats were lactating, and she tells me that this was pretty common, if folks had access to a goat. Dairy just isn't a significant part of Korean cuisine at all, but many people still drank milk. I'd guess this is true in lots of other cultures as well.

AJP wrote:
Quote:
***Warning, personal speculation to follow***This seems to me to be adaptation to life-long dairy consumption on an individual level, not just a species level. If it's present as a significant portion of the diet, physiologically the assumption is made that it's worthwhile to continue to devote resources to adequately digest and assimilate it (I think of things like this as physical intelligence). Some people maybe just don't have the potential to produce lactase past weaning, but some - perhaps descended from populations with a history of dairy as a significant source of nutrition - have the ability that can either be maintained via consumption of lactose past weaning into adulthood, or lost for good if dairy is no longer a part of the diet past weaning. It makes sense to me that the body would continue to produce lactase if prompted by the presence of lactose in the diet, but if lactose consumption stops for an appreciable amount of time (years, say) then the body would no longer dedicate the resources to produce lactase.
This interests me. I've always wondered why in the world I seem to be lactose tolerant while my Jewish dh is not. Can I speculate too? I am guessing gut bacteria is at issue. I thought that we produce lactase for our early years 1) because babies are reliant on breastmilk, and 2) babies' gut flora don't have all the necessary bacteria, which can produce lactase for us. Lactase-producing bacteria is also found in raw cow milk (I honestly don't know about goat, sheep or yak, for that matter, but I'd guess it was there too). Anyway, I always wondered whether the large percentage of lactose-intolerant people in the population reflected some environmental condition - either due to the way we produce our milk, the health of our gut flora, or as AJP suggests, the presence of absence of lactose in the diet - and not, as many assume, some purely genetic condition.

And BTW, I am not even a particularly big fan of dairy. I've only recently starting consuming more dairy. Previously, I rarely ate any dairy - no milk or yogurt at all, occasional cheese or ice cream. I can take it or leave it, and the only reason why I'm taking it now is because in my case, raw milk is a simple, dense way to get more calcium. Yes, there are greens, whole fish (with the bones) and bone soup (these are my mom's current sources of calcium, and her scans show that she has the bone density of a teenage athlete!), but pouring a glass of milk or slicing up some cheese is easier for me. That's it - just pure laziness. If I had my choice about it though, I'd take my mom's soup over a glass of milk any day.

I'm going back to quote one of Marie's old posts. I'm adding my emphasis:
Quote:
I couldn't agree more. We are omnivores. If we are eating dairy/grains/legumes in moderation, I'm sure we would derive nutritional value that would outweigh the negatives. We are, however, eating it too much, and our bodies are just not capable of handling it, and this is where the genetic/palaeolithic nutritional pattern becomes part of the argument. Milk and milk proteins are everywhere, in almost every meal for our entire lives, unless we consciously try to avoid it. THAT is the crux of the problem. Our diets are too relient upon two foods: wheat and dairy...almost to the exclusion of other things (and when I say we, I mean the general American public...not Mothering.com specifically.)
Because really, I'm ITA with this. I think the features of the paleo diet describes, for the most part, the type of diet I am trying to achieve for my family (except the nuts. We don't do nuts. Oh, and bugs. We don't do bugs either). To this I add some soaked/sprouted/sourdough grains, some dairy, some food supplements, some probiotic stuff, some bone broths, some tropical fats - you know, the NT stuff. I don't think it needs to be an either/or proposition. The question of whether we ought to abstain from dairy because our paleolithic ancestors did not eat it or because cow milk is "made for" baby cows or is not one that concerns me much. Dairy is only part of a larger nutritional picture.

I'm getting so rambly here, and I wanted to say more, but since it's 3 am, I should probably just go to bed.
post #92 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by yllek View Post
(how does everyone get people's names to show up in the quote box?)
There are now three buttons at the bottom of each person's post ... Quote, Multi-Quote and Quick Reply. If you want to quote more than one person, click the Multi-Quote button for each post you want to include. When you're done (and I think it remembers for multiple pages), then click the Quote button on the final post you want to include. They should all show up, and include a reference to the original post. A new feature, and one I'm enjoying very much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by yllek View Post
I'm going back to quote one of Marie's old posts. I'm adding my emphasis:

Because really, I'm ITA with this. I think the features of the paleo diet describes, for the most part, the type of diet I am trying to achieve for my family (except the nuts. We don't do nuts. Oh, and bugs. We don't do bugs either). To this I add some soaked/sprouted/sourdough grains, some dairy, some food supplements, some probiotic stuff, some bone broths, some tropical fats - you know, the NT stuff. I don't think it needs to be an either/or proposition. The question of whether we ought to abstain from dairy because our paleolithic ancestors did not eat it or because cow milk is "made for" baby cows or is not one that concerns me much. Dairy is only part of a larger nutritional picture.
As I said before, I am new to traditional foods, and very new to the paleolithic vs. neolithic debate. But I have to say I agree with this too ... just from a gut level. As someone who whole-heartedly embraced various diet lifestyles in the past (food combining, vegetarianism, veganism, eat-whatever-you-want-ism ), I am learning as I mature that going to extremes is not a good thing for me. The fact is, in today's world it is nearly impossible to easily eat only a paleolithic diet. It's my personal opinion that it is probably the healthiest way to go, but I do much better when I follow a philosophy without rigidly adhering to it. Otherwise I end up "failing". I will probably keep the paleo diet in mind, and when I deviate, I'll try to use NT methods to make "non-paleo" foods easier on my body (raw and/or cultured dairy products, sprouted grains or sourdough, etc.). I will still go out to eat from time to time, I will not ask my friends to make special dietary considerations for me when I eat meals at their house, and I am NOT giving up chocolate!

Quote:
Originally Posted by yllek View Post
Oh, and bugs. We don't do bugs either).
Yeah. We don't do that either. Unless you count the dead bugs my dd eats off the floor .
post #93 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by yllek View Post
Oh, and bugs. We don't do bugs either.
Don't tell me you've never had bundaegi! Lurve it.

It seems we are all in general agreement about trying to follow the paleo diet in some respects. I'm very on the fence about dairy still. Independent of the paleo argument, just today I was talking to some anti-dairy moms and they'll say that calcium from dairy is very poorly absorbed. Yet, I've always seen dairy as an easy source of calcium as well. Ugh. Everyone makes such compelling points. But I'm definitely giving up gluten as much as possible. I realized that all this time, there was a reason why I was so sluggish after wheat (even whole wheat) noodles.
post #94 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mommay View Post
Independent of the paleo argument, just today I was talking to some anti-dairy moms and they'll say that calcium from dairy is very poorly absorbed. Yet, I've always seen dairy as an easy source of calcium as well. Ugh.
Vitamin D is needed to absorb calcium properly. Commercial milk is fortified with syntethic vitamin D for this reason but it is hard to absorb too. If the milk is raw, you don't have this problem. Raw milk from grass fed cows has plenty of fat soluable vitamin D so its not an issue. Commercial pasteurized milk has two problems in regards to Vitamin D and Calcium absorbtion:

1) Pasteurization deminishes the Vitamin D content in milk
2) Commercial dairy cows are kept in barns so they do not get as much exposure to sun needed to produce Vitamin D

HTH

Kim
post #95 of 127
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactose_intolerance

Very interesting

"A relatively recent genetic change caused some populations, including many northern Europeans, to continue producing lactase into adulthood; these lactose-tolerant populations are in the minority. Lactose intolerance is an autosomal recessive trait, while lactase-persistence is the dominant allele."

"There is some debate on exactly where and when the mutation(s) occurred, some arguing for separate mutation events in Sweden (which has one of the lowest levels of lactose intolerance in the world) and the Arabian Peninsula near 4000 BC which converged as they spread, while others argue for a single event in the Middle East at about 4500 BC which radiated from there. Some sources suggest a third and more recent mutation in the East African Tutsi. Whatever the precise origin in time and place, most modern Western Europeans and people of Western European ancestry show the effects of this mutation (that is, they are able to safely consume milk products all their lives) while most modern East Asians, sub-Saharan Africans and native peoples of the Americas and Pacific Islands do not (making them lactose intolerant as adults)[2]."

It goes on to talk about how there were some groups that did consume dairy in place other than Europe (I consider the Middle East part of Europe). However, they were few and far between. And I did say MOST, not all. My statement is therefore TRUE.

http://www.cambridge.org/us/books/kiple/lactose.htm

"In areas with
no dairying tradition, such as China, Oceania, Pre-Columbian America, or tropical Africa, few adults can digest lactose."

Scroll down" excellent info

http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2002/june/lactose.htm

Now, I am not anti-dairy. I really really want sheep for wool, and if I were able to use the milk, that would just be an added bonus. However, like most people in my family, I am lactose intolerant. Mine is a recent development as I have been off dairy due to dd's allergy.

I just like people to know the truth. Lactose intolerance is NORMAL. It is only a recent mutation to be able to digest it after early childhood.

And yes, I call it pus. Maybe I just have a "stronger stomach", but that's what it is. Just like there are rat hairs in ketchup, right? But I won't sugar coat it.
post #96 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by newcastlemama View Post
Tanya-Did you work for Recovery Systems by any chance?
no...never even hear of...Evergreen Clinic

Tanya
post #97 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by kimbernet View Post
Vitamin D is needed to absorb calcium properly. Commercial milk is fortified with syntethic vitamin D for this reason but it is hard to absorb too. If the milk is raw, you don't have this problem. Raw milk from grass fed cows has plenty of fat soluable vitamin D so its not an issue. Commercial pasteurized milk has two problems in regards to Vitamin D and Calcium absorbtion:

1) Pasteurization deminishes the Vitamin D content in milk
2) Commercial dairy cows are kept in barns so they do not get as much exposure to sun needed to produce Vitamin D

HTH

Kim
Theres another issues with calcium in cows milk and that is its balance with magensium. The ideal balance is 2:1 in milk its like 9:1. Most people in the us are getting plenty of calcium but something like 90% are severely deficient in magnesium....

Tanya

Tanya
post #98 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by dnw826 View Post
However, like most people in my family, I am lactose intolerant. Mine is a recent development as I have been off dairy due to dd's allergy.
I've been diagnosed "lactose intolerant". I actually had the test in high school, where they give you a glass of lactose and measure the hydrogen levels in your breath. I was waaaaay off the chart. I went home after the test and threw up all night.
However, once I found a source for grassfed raw milk, I tried it. I drank LOTS of it. After not having touched dairy for YEARS. And not so much as a slight gas pain.
Now, another problem I've had with milk is that I get stuffed up. Interestingly, I've come to discover that only happens when I drink milk from grain-fed cows. And I've also discovered it happens when I drink beer or eat too many grain foods. So I figure the grain-fed cows probably have a leaky gut that allows grain proteins to pass into their milk, which are what cause me the problem.
So, when you get your sheep, you might as well give the milk a try. You might be surprised. (Oh, and I'll buy a shearing off you too . I refuse to buy conventional wool anymore and wool from well-treated sheep is pricey.)
post #99 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tcarwyn View Post
Theres another issues with calcium in cows milk and that is its balance with magensium. The ideal balance is 2:1 in milk its like 9:1. Most people in the us are getting plenty of calcium but something like 90% are severely deficient in magnesium....

Tanya

Tanya
I will take that as a direct order to put cocoa in my milk from now on (if I ever find another source for raw milk)
post #100 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by HerthElde View Post
I will take that as a direct order to put cocoa in my milk from now on (if I ever find another source for raw milk)
So that's why Mary Enig is always putting cocoa in her milk! I've been trying to figure that one out. I thought maybe she just didn't like the taste of plain milk.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Traditional Foods
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Natural Living › Nutrition and Good Eating › Traditional Foods › Paleo/NT, Is Eating Dairy Natural?