The Obesification of America

[Auxin]

I thought this article contains some interesting points for consideration.

The Obesification of America

by Gary Kaposta / July 11th, 2008

Contrary to what Americans have been led to believe, the epidemic rise of excess weight gain and obesity in this country is not the result of overeating fat laden foods. The obesification of America is the direct result of a mild depression that causes people to savagely crave, and then overeat, junk food carbohydrate (sugar).

Junk food is the trillion dollar food industries legal drug for this mild depression and, although it’s been very profitable for the food companies, it’s been devastating for the health of the American public. According to the Centers for Disease Control, 368,000 Americans died last year from obesity related illnesses. In comparison, fewer than 14,000 Americans die annually from all the illegal drugs combined. This epidemic is an ominous threat to our country’s future.

America’s overconsumption of the chips, bagels, sodas, pastries, sweets, fries, etc., stems from ferocious cravings that are triggered by low levels of a key neurotransmitter or chemical messenger in the brain called Serotonin. Serotonin is the feel good hormone that affects mood and cravings.

Depleted levels of Serotonin are caused by the contemporary lifestyle factors of stress, poor nutrition, and the lack of quality sleep. It is estimated that over 80% of the U.S. public suffers from low Serotonin and thus, record numbers of prescriptions are being written for the anti-depressants like Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, etc. These mind drugs, called Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (aka SSRI’s), attempt to alleviate this unhealthy, low Serotonin condition. Unfortunately, SSRI’s are now the number one selling prescription drugs.

Dr. Diana Schwarzbein, the highly reputed author of The Schwarzbein Principle and founder of The Endocrinology Institute of Santa Barbara, CA, says, “These hormone depleted cravings can be more powerful than the cravings experienced by drug users for illegal street narcotics.” The body instinctively knows that eating junk food will cause the brain to produce a burst of this feel good hormone. Junk food acts like a psychoactive drug for this widespread mild depression and, that is why it is commonly referred to as mood food, comfort food, or emotional eating.

In addition to low Serotonin, the food flavoring agent High Fructose Corn Syrup promotes junk food carbohydrate craving and also blocks the body’s ability to feel full. Tests have shown that even healthy people consume more food when it contains HFCS.

Most Americans are unaware that corn syrup was banned as a food additive in 1906 by Dr. Harvey Wiley, the Father of the Pure Food and Drugs Act. Wiley was a sugar research expert and the first head of the Bureau of Chemistry (now the FDA). He banned corn syrup because it was the only sweetener causing diabetes in all of the test animals. Dr. Wiley accurately predicted that if we ever allowed corn syrup to be used as a food additive, we would become a nation of diabetics. Today, because of food politics, HFCS is in over 98% of all the food sold in America and nearly 21 million Americans have diabetes with an annual cost to the taxpayers of $132 billion.

Eating junk food causes blood sugar levels to skyrocket. Excess blood sugar is toxic and therefore the body is forced to overproduce insulin in order to shuttle the excess blood sugar (glucose) into fat cells. This process protects the brain and eyes from sugar toxicity. Diabetics must constantly check their blood sugar and self inject insulin if blood sugar levels are too high in order to prevent diabetic coma or blindness. Insulin acts like an automatic gate opener to your fat cells. The primary function of insulin is to store body fat.

During the late 50’s, in response to the growth of coronary heart disease (CHD), a researcher by the name of Ancel Keyes forwarded what is referred to as the lipid hypothesis. The lipid theory was that there was a direct relationship between the amount of saturated fat and cholesterol in the diet and the incidence of CHD. Although there were many health professionals that disputed this theory, food politics trumped solid science and the low-fat, low-cholesterol mania was born.

Four food companies that had a vested interest in the demise of saturated fats began promoting and funding additional research that supported the lipid hypothesis. Those with opposing views were afforded little, if any, publicity and the nation was misled into a war against fat and cholesterol. Our National Institute of Health and the medical community bought into and endorsed the low-fat, low-cholesterol movement.

In response to this ill fated notion, the giant food industry began to produce entire product lines of low-fat, fat-free food. Americans were advised to eliminate saturated fat and cholesterol containing foods from their diets even though nature’s perfect food, mother’s milk, contains copious amounts of saturated fat and cholesterol.

For years, the Medical community has referred to The Framingham Heart Study as the basis for their food recommendations. However, the director of the study, which began in 1948, said, “In Framingham, Mass., the more saturated fat one ate, the more cholesterol one ate, the more calories one ate, the lower the persons serum cholesterol… we found that the people who ate the most cholesterol, ate the most saturated fat, ate the most calories, weighed the least and were the most physically active.” His statement certainly didn’t support the Keyes lipid hypothesis.

Dr. Mary Enig, a world renowned lipid (fat) biochemist from Baltimore, MD, clearly states that “Cholesterol is not the cause of heart disease but rather a potent antioxidant weapon against free radicals in the blood, and a repair substance that helps heal arterial damage.” And, Dr. Walter Willett, the noted epidemiologist from Harvard, calls it scandalous that “Not one government agency has changed its primary food guideline to fit the results of the 1990’s scientific findings which demonstrate that total fat, including saturated fat, has no relation to heart disease.”

So, eating healthy fat doesn’t make you fat, overeating junk food carbohydrate (sugar) does. Americans are eating less fat than ever and fat is essential for the production of Serotonin. Eating healthy fat (not fried or hydrogenated) with meals slows the time (transient time) it takes for food to be converted into blood sugar. Fat doesn’t provoke an insulin response and it is impossible to store fat without the presence of insulin.

Even today, effective propaganda by the food-industry has many people, including doctors, believing that eating saturated fat and cholesterol is the cause of excess weight gain and coronary heart disease. In a recent survey, 53% of the doctors polled were still under the impression that saturated fat was unhealthy. There are many doctors who know very little about nutrition because it wasn’t incorporated into the medical curriculum until 1994. It should be noted that at the most recent convention of the American Medical Association, over 66% of the doctors in attendance were either overweight or obese.

This epidemic has given rise to a booming weight loss industry that promises fast, easy solutions. Most of these companies offer stimulant laden products that suppress the appetite. This ill-conceived approach results only in the temporary loss of bone, muscle, or water weight and not long term, successful fat loss. Because Americans are attracted to the quick fix, they have fallen prey to these diet scams.

It’s time we recognize that it’s about depleted brain chemistry and blaming overweight people for a lack of discipline or willpower is misguided and wrong. This has become an important social issue. The food conglomerates have placed profits ahead of health and we must address this epidemic before it is too late. Americans made it a priority to protect the water, air, and soil and we should consider protecting the most precious resource we have, the citizenry. It is time to reverse the obesification of America.

[Ace]

Absolutely fascinating! I know very little about dieting or the mechanisms involved in weight gain/loss, but the little that I 'know' leaned toward saturated fat being bad (apparently like the huge amount of the US and western world). Not only does this show that propaganda can be found almost everywhere, but it also shows just how much of an issue obesity is becoming - all at least partly because of BS and bad marketing. It would be good to see nutrition taught in every primary/high school as a core subject, even if only for a few weeks each year so that future generations stand a chance against this epidemic.

Reminds me of that song by Lazyboy - "Obesity has become an epidemic. Like it's f*cking polio or something. We'll look back on it as the great obesity epidemic of 2004. 'It was horrible Johnny, there were cheeseburgers and pork chops everywhere...'"

Auxin, any chance you have a link to the original source for this write up? I'd like to pass this on to some friends.

Edit: Thanks for the link Auxin

Edited July 15, 2008 by Ace

[Auxin]

Woops, forgot that bit eh?

Link

One of my favorite 'news' sites, they come up with interesting stuff sometimes.

[PhoenixSon]

Australia is meant to be more obese then the US these days.

[Auxin]

Y'all also have twice the prevalence of diabetes with Oz at a whopping 15% of the population

I'll bet, like the US, most of your prepackaged beverages contain high fructose corn syrup (clinically shown to cause diabetes) and I'll also bet due to the warmer climate you folk drink more pre-made beverages than us.

Could be relevant.

[Jesus On Peyote]

Also got to take into consideration the population %, Aus has something like 20 million people, (last i heard it was around there) while the US is closer to 300 million.

Good link aux, looks like a decent alt news source.

[ajna]

yeah nice find Auxin, good article. i remember reading McKenna's spiel on the sugar addiction epidemic too

this is a fairly serious topic that i've looked into recently. i had thought about starting a thread about this website but it's pretty relevant here, will move it if preferred though, figured some people might be interested in reading and i'd like to hear other people's views on it all too.

Weston A Price Foundation - http://www.westonaprice.org/splash_2.htm

a run down - Weston Price was a dentist and nutritionist in 20-30s who visited and studied tribal cultures from around the world, and through this discovered what he thought were the dietary elements essential to optimum human health and the causes of many diseases in developed countries. the foundation is set up to spread and continue his work, some of the information contradicts what is accepted common knowledge in nutrition (and dentistry for that matter) so i've found it quite illuminating. controversy does exist over some of their principles such as supporting consumption of saturated fats and cholesterol, and what tends to be an anti-vegetarian, ant-soy stance, but other than that it's mostly supports unprocessed, traditional foods and an anti-sugar stance which is pretty well accepted across the board.

some examples of excerpts relevant to this thread:

Myth: Heart disease in America is caused by consumption of cholesterol and saturated fat from animal products.

Truth: During the period of rapid increase in heart disease (1920-1960), American consumption of animal fats declined but consumption of hydrogenated and industrially processed vegetable fats increased dramatically. (USDA-HNI)

Myth: Saturated fat clogs arteries.

Truth: The fatty acids found in artery clogs are mostly unsaturated (74%) of which 41% are polyunsaturated. (Lancet 1994 344:1195)

Myth: Animal fats cause cancer and heart disease.

Truth: Animal fats contain many nutrients that protect against cancer and heart disease; elevated rates of cancer and heart disease are associated with consumption of large amounts of vegetable oils. (Fed Proc July 1978 37:2215)

Myth: Children benefit from a low-fat diet.

Truth: Children on low-fat diets suffer from growth problems, failure to thrive & learning disabilities. (Food Chem News 10/3/94)

Myth: A low-fat diet will make you "feel better . . . and increase your joy of living."

Truth: Low-fat diets are associated with increased rates of depression, psychological problems, fatigue, violence and suicide. (Lancet 3/21/92 v339)

http://www.westonaprice.org/mythstruths/mtnutrition.html

i found out about this stuff through their raw milk campaigns. i had thought i was intolerant to dairy, then i tried unhomogenised, unpastuerised milk and funnily enough it went down a treat. with that and what i've read on the site, im no expert but i have to say they lead with a fairly convincing argument. but i wont take it further off topic.

in both the US and Oz this has got to be one of the biggest issues we are currently facing, but it may be hard to change the misinformation when even doctors and nutritionists dont know the score.

[Auxin]

anti-vegetarian, ant-soy stance, but other than that it's mostly supports unprocessed, traditional foods

soy as we generally encounter it is anything but traditional or unprocessed! With the exception of heavily fermented soy products westerners rarely encounter (most soy sauce is not traditionally fermented) soy has only been in the human diet for 50 years or so! And it tends to be heavily processed. And with how soy fucks around estrogen levels and steroid metabolism I stay away anyway. Scary stuff.

I'll have to differ with you on raw milk. Unpasteurized milk is not safe. I'd stop drinking it before I trust the dairy industry and my government to regulate unpasteurized milk that well.

Myth: Animal fats cause cancer

Spot on calling BS on that one, its stated like that in common urban myth and in that way its wrong but I thought the more destructive forms of cooking were the factor that converted amounts of animal fats into harmful oxidation products that were linked to cancer? I keep mainly to chicken and cook it up into stews and non-destructively cook it into curries to be safe.

Sounds like an interesting site, I'll have to look into it.. and I'm also gonna hit google scholar to try and figure out that whole arterial plaque being unsaturated fats thing, thats a new one on me

[ajna]

soy as we generally encounter it is anything but traditional or unprocessed! With the exception of heavily fermented soy products westerners rarely encounter (most soy sauce is not traditionally fermented) soy has only been in the human diet for 50 years or so! And it tends to be heavily processed. And with how soy fucks around estrogen levels and steroid metabolism I stay away anyway. Scary stuff.

I'll have to differ with you on raw milk. Unpasteurized milk is not safe. I'd stop drinking it before I trust the dairy industry and my government to regulate unpasteurized milk that well.

Myth: Animal fats cause cancer

Spot on calling BS on that one, its stated like that in common urban myth and in that way its wrong but I thought the more destructive forms of cooking were the factor that converted amounts of animal fats into harmful oxidation products that were linked to cancer? I keep mainly to chicken and cook it up into stews and non-destructively cook it into curries to be safe.

Sounds like an interesting site, I'll have to look into it.. and I'm also gonna hit google scholar to try and figure out that whole arterial plaque being unsaturated fats thing, thats a new one on me

yes my sentence probably wasn't that clear but i was saying that they are ANTI soy products, PRO traditional, unprocessed foods, for some of those same reasons.

re raw milk, i invite the skepticism! lol i wont try and sell it to you, but they have a site with plenty of info if you are interested. i was skeptical, but curious enough to try it out because i missed drinking milk. i sourced some raw milk and have encountered no problems yet, but i know that only speaks for me. here's a snippit of the pasteurisation deal as far as they are concerned:

Pasteurization destroys enzymes, diminishes vitamin content, denatures fragile milk proteins, destroys vitamins C, B12 and B6, kills beneficial bacteria, promotes pathogens and is associated with allergies, increased tooth decay, colic in infants, growth problems in children, osteoporosis, arthritis, heart disease and cancer. Calves fed pasteurized milk do poorly and many die before maturity. Raw milk sours naturally but pasteurized milk turns putrid; processors must remove slime and pus from pasteurized milk by a process of centrifugal clarification. Inspection of dairy herds for disease is not required for pasteurized milk. Pasteurization was instituted in the 1920s to combat TB, infant diarrhea, undulant fever and other diseases caused by poor animal nutrition and dirty production methods. But times have changed and modern stainless steel tanks, milking machines, refrigerated trucks and inspection methods make pasteurization absolutely unnecessary for public protection. And pasteurization does not always kill the bacteria for Johne’s disease suspected of causing Crohn's disease in humans with which most confinement cows are infected. Much commercial milk is now ultra-pasteurized to get rid of heat-resistant bacteria and give it a longer shelf life. Ultra-pasteurization is a violent process that takes milk from a chilled temperature to above the boiling point in less than two seconds. Clean raw milk from certified healthy cows is available commercially in several states and may be bought directly from the farm in many more. (Sources are listed on www.realmilk.com.)

but yeah i put this info up to be disputed really, i'm not trying to convert anyone if it seems that way haha the weston price view on fats and the lipid hypothesis are not found in the average nutrition textbook or national dietary guidelines, but it does fit with the information in this original article

[ThunderIdeal]

i recently saw a program where an idea was being discussed to curb infant obesity.

they proposed reduced fat milk RIGHT FROM THE GET GO, and not just for children exhibiting high weight but for all children. i hope it isn't seriously being considered because it's outrageous.

the milk quote is interesting, saying "promotes pathogens" of a technique that destroys them... but maybe it's talking about this "Raw milk sours naturally but pasteurized milk turns putrid".

in any event, i highly recommend unhomogenised milk (cream is not evenly distributed). i've been told the nutritive value is better than fully processed milk, but maybe the serious benefits require raw milk..

[mark80]

i recently saw a program where an idea was being discussed to curb infant obesity.

The porblem wuith that is alt of people still use infinate obesity as a good thing- baker hypothieses is still taken as the word of gosspel.

[herbologist]

IMO milk is bad for you anyway.

A bit off topic, but it is about milk.

I'm lactose intolerant and have been looking into this for a while. Nutritionists and doctors have both said that people with lactose intolerance have less insidence of heart disease (no link, just from personal consultations). I have a book called " Don't drink your milk" by Frank A Osk. I can't find itright now , but it's all about the milk. It states that something like 80% of the worlds population is lactose intolerant, mostly not westerners because cows milk is part of our diet. Your body (or any other mammals body) does not produce the 'bug' that digests lactose. If you abstain from lactose containing food you will slowly start to loose the ability to break down lactose and start to become lactose intolerant. Infants in countrys where dairy cattle are not kept, and it's not convenient to just duck down the shops to get a bottle of milk, are weened from breast milk and not onto cows milk so they loose the ability to digest milk - becoming lactose intolerant. During the Famine relief in Ethiopia back in the 80's the US dropped tons upon tons of powdered milk for the starving people as part of the food delivery. Apparently most of them were sick from the milk, seeing as though lactose containing food is not part of their diet, they then used the powdered milk as paint to paint their homes white. All mammals (except some humans) after infancy are lactose intolerant.

There was also some talk, I can't remember the details just now, about the US school program of giving out a carton of milk with school lunchs.

Well thats what this book is telling me....It's ina book so it must be true.....right?

[Hagakure]

some more info here on this radio show

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/healthreport/stor...007/1969924.htm

fascinating stuff

[Auxin]

I can understand the desire for more nutritious milk, and pasteurization does destroy some vitamins and denature proteins so they and the calcium is less bioavailable. I just dont trust the regulatory bodies in my country. Every few years, sometimes every year, there are E. coli outbreaks in my country due to improperly produced, processed, and regulated foods. One particularly large outbreak that sickened many thousands and killed a bunch of kids was caused by unpasteurized fruit juice. And its not just E. coli either, my whole system is corrupt. One meat producer here decided to take the initiative and test all their cows for mad cow disease before using them for food, they were banned from doing so by the federal government because it was deemed unfair to other producers that only wanted to do the minimum testing required by law so now it is illegal for a dairy farmer to test his cows for mad cow disease. So yeah I'm just the skiddish sort, I roll my salads in boiling water before eating them .

And salem, your right milk is in no way a required food source and people can be perfectly healthy without it but on the other extreme excessive milk consumption is known to cause a type of blindness

[ajna]

woops sorry we now have a milk thread but i don't want to leave your comments hanging...

TI:

the milk quote is interesting, saying "promotes pathogens" of a technique that destroys them... but maybe it's talking about this "Raw milk sours naturally but pasteurized milk turns putrid"

yeah, the idea is that raw milk contains a large number of protective/anti-pathogenic factors which keep it safe for young as there are almost always pathogens present in milk (this is true of human milk), and the pasteurisation process destroys the majority of these factors leaving a habitable environment for pathogens. it's also the presence of good bacteria in raw milk which allows it to sour naturally as opposed to pasteurised milk which has no good bacteria and goes off

i tend to put faith in the fact that humans were consuming milk for a long time before pasteurisation came along, from happy, healthy beasts. i mean the hindus know their shit right? in ayurveda milk is seen as an ultimate super food, for the young, the old, the sick...you can always trust a hindu lol

salem:

yep that is my understanding of the lactose intolerance issue, but books such as the one you mentioned are speaking about processed milk, raw might be different with some issues. i haven't been diagnosed as such but after getting out of my teens every attempt to ingest milk (or icecream etc) resulted in pains, bloating, gas and all that good stuff, so i assumed i was intolerant. when i heard about the raw milk campaign last year i remember hearing something about how pasteurisation turns lactose into beta-lactose along with the rest of the changes that take place during processing (eg damaged enzymes which may assist digestion). i dared to test their theory - no bloating, i haven't contracted any diseases yet, and it tastes ao thick and delicious lol so i'm back to having the odd bit of milk, but get the same symptoms if it's not raw stuff.

i might not even be lactose intolerant, and i'm certainly not suggesting anyone who is tries raw milk! besides, it's illegal to sell for human consumption in this country so it's not so easy to find everywhere.

auxin:

I just dont trust the regulatory bodies in my country. Every few years, sometimes every year, there are E. coli outbreaks in my country due to improperly produced, processed, and regulated foods. And its not just E. coli either, my whole system is corrupt.

i hear ya buddy!! ideally a lot would have to change if everyone was to start drinking raw milk; it would mean a decentralisation of the food industry and focus on local produce and small farms etc, and there's no way in hell the major companies want that and the regulatory bodies help them keep it all in place the way it is. the more i learn about our dairy/food industry here the more it starts sounding just like the drugs and pharmaceutical industry, raw milk is almost blackmarket, hiding in the underground, with dairy industry spies sent out to suspected raw milk farmers (or peddlers?) asking for a sample (human consumption) then running off to have them shutdown lol it all seems preposterous to me anyway. but yeah, i totally understand where you are coming from and don't have any intention of trying to change your mind, milk was an accidental tangent from the other more relevant info anyway haha

[Auxin]

So its illegal there too?

Quick brotha its the cops! Hide the bong and the milk!!!

[ajna]

yep illegal here too, funny ol' world

"we're not here for the herb, boys, this is serious. we have reason to suspect you have a raw milk fermentation lab operating on the premises..."

[Legba]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7519459.stm

Soy foods 'reduce sperm numbers'

A regular diet of even modest amounts of food containing soy may halve sperm concentrations, suggest scientists.

The study, published in the journal Human Reproduction, found 41 million fewer sperm per millilitre of semen after just one portion every two days.

The authors said plant oestrogens in foods such as tofu, soy mince or milk may interfere with hormonal signals.

However, a UK expert stressed that most men in Asia eat more soy-based products with no fertility problems.

Animal studies have suggested that large quantities of soy chemicals in food could affect fertility, but other studies looking at consumption in humans have had contradictory findings.

The Harvard School of Public Health study looked at the diets of 99 men who had attended a fertility clinic with their partners and provided a semen sample.

The men were divided into four groups depending on how much soy they ate, and when the sperm concentration of men eating the most soy was compared with those eating the least, there was a significant difference.

The "normal" sperm concentration for a man is between 80 and 120 million per millilitre, and the average of men who ate on average a portion of soy-based food every other day was 41 million fewer.

Dr Jorge Chavarro, who led the study, said that chemicals called isoflavones in the soy might be affecting sperm production.

These chemicals can have similar effects to the human hormone oestrogen.

Dr Chavarro noticed that overweight or obese men seemed even more prone to this effect, which may reflect the fact that higher levels of body fat can also lead to increased oestrogen production in men.

However, the study pointed out that soy consumption in many parts of Asia was significantly higher than even the maximum found in these volunteers.

Dr Allan Pacey, a senior lecturer in andrology from the University of Sheffield, said that if soy genuinely had a detrimental effect on sperm production, fertility might well be affected in those regions, and there was no evidence that this was the case.

"Many men are obviously worried about whether their lifestyle or diet could affect their fertility by lowering their sperm count.

"Oestrogenic compounds in food or the environment have been of concern for a number of years, but we have mostly thought that it was boys exposed in the uterus before birth who were most at risk.

"We will have to look at adult diet more closely, although the fact that such large parts of the world have soy food as a major part of their diet and don't appear to suffer any greater infertility rates than those on western diets suggests that any effect is quite small."

[Auxin]

That doctor was underplaying the potential for differences in genetic polymorphisms in isoflavone metabolism and isoflavone inhibitory effects on metabolic enzymes. Drugs are often metabolized differently by different races, this is common knowledge.

Soy isoflavones are potent inhibitors of SULT1A1 in white populations. SULT1A1, among (many) other functions, converts endogenous estrogen in males and females into the sulfate form so the body can get rid of it. The theory is that by blocking the bodys ability to get rid of excess estrogen the estrogen levels in both men and women will be raised and have sexual and possible carcinogenic side effects. Now- given the commonality of polymorphisms in metabolic enzymes its entirely possible that for a significant portion of certain asian populations either their SULT1A1 is less susceptible to soy inhibition or the enzymes that clear soy isoflavones from the system work at a faster rate. If such is the case then yes, for a certain (maby even large) portion of certain asian populations the estrogen increasing effect of soy may be minimal while it could still be dangerous for other polymorphs in asia and other ethnic groups.

Never trust generalizations about drug metabolism made across different ethnic groups.

[herbologist]

IMO people can be more healthy without milk. The whole dairy thing here ( don't know what it's like there ) is like if you don't drink milk you will have weak bones, but there is the same amount of calcium in a glass of fortified orange juice as in a glass of milk, without the heart disease.

Milk is in everything. Even some brands of plain salted chips, how the hell do you cram dairy into a plain salted potato chip?

Ajna:

Thanks for that, but I'm not keen. I get so sick from just eating stuff with milk by-products in them, such as whey powder in potato chip flavouring. I'm even scared to try the lactose free cows milk, When I went to the doctors to see if I could be tested for lactose intolerance I was told the only test was to drink a glass of milk and see what happened. I told the doctor what usually happens and she said that my sever reaction might mean I'm not lactose intolerant but maybe allergic to cows milk.

I'm scared of milk I wonder if there is a name for that?

[Auxin]

Well if its only cows milk thatd be bovolactophobia? But if you can only approach pregnant women from behind for fear of their milk cannons spontaneously firing that'd be general lactophobia.

[Jesus On Peyote]

On the Subject of milk, iv heard that milk derived from donkeys is ment to better for you.. i cant confirm it, but wouldent mind if anyone can clear it up, and what would be the different between cows milk and donkey milk?