Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Heat treating cream, the good bacteria survive but the bad doesn't? page

  1. #1
    stevehtcyl's Avatar
    stevehtcyl is offline Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Posts
    55

    Heat treating cream, the good bacteria survive but the bad doesn't?

    Primal Fuel
    Hi all,

    I went to my local farmer's market the other day trying to buy some raw cream. Apparently in Scotland it's illegal/banned to sell raw dairy for human consumption, and finding any to give to my imaginary cat is also impossible :P. One of the farmers there was selling cream that they said was heat treated (as opposed to pasteurised) for 20s which killed the bad bacteria but left the good. I'm really dubious about this, I've never seen anything to suggest that bad bacteria die more easily than good bacteria.

    Can anyone offer any info?

    Thanks.

  2. #2
    jo's Avatar
    jo
    jo is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Posts
    733
    LOL - sounds like a tall story to me. Maybe certain bacteria die at certain temperatures, I don't know. You'll have to cross the border to get hold of some I think.

  3. #3
    mcasse's Avatar
    mcasse is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    29
    There's all sorts of pasteurization. Lower temp, longer time pasteurization is on the order of minutes as opposed to seconds. 20s sounds more like conventional to ultra- pasteurization. Heat treated milk is pasteurized for 20-60 minutes.

    As much as raw milk is promoted as good for health, unless you raise it yourself, I wouldn't trust it. Former dairy farmer here!

  4. #4
    cillakat's Avatar
    cillakat is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    4,473
    Quote Originally Posted by stevehtcyl View Post
    One of the farmers there was selling cream that they said was heat treated (as opposed to pasteurised) for 20s which killed the bad bacteria but left the good.
    It's likely flash pasteurized. Good stuff is killed too.

    My grandfather was a dairy farmer. We drank raw milk all the time. If i could see the operation for myself ,I'd have no problem drinking the milk.

    Fwiw, stevehtcyl, being in Scotland, you need vitamin D from supplements every day. Every single day.

    http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AV...A0d3BjMw&hl=en

    vitamindcouncil.org

    Best,
    Katherine

  5. #5
    stevehtcyl's Avatar
    stevehtcyl is offline Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Posts
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by cillakat View Post
    Fwiw, stevehtcyl, being in Scotland, you need vitamin D from supplements every day. Every single day.
    Yeah cheers for that, I do take between 2000 and 4000 IU of vit d every day and whenever the sun is actually out (about 5 secs if you catch it right) I get my skin out and soak up what I can.

  6. #6
    cillakat's Avatar
    cillakat is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    4,473
    Primal Blueprint Expert Certification
    Quote Originally Posted by stevehtcyl View Post
    Yeah cheers for that, I do take between 2000 and 4000 IU of vit d every day and whenever the sun is actually out (about 5 secs if you catch it right) I get my skin out and soak up what I can.
    4000 IU is an excellent start. Some more info though - most who really can't get good UVB exposure (and in Scotland you just can't, even when the sun is out) will need 1000 IU per 25 lbs body weight - aka 25 mcg per 11 kg body weight.

    http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AV...A0d3BjMw&hl=en
    Vitamin D Dosing and Levels

    nmoL - units used to measure D most places in the world
    ng/mL - units used in the US
    ** Please be sure to pay attention to the units given on your lab report.
    ** Quest Labs -problems remain. See the end of the paper for citations.



    What should my vitamin D level be?
    see below for information on various vitamin D levels........

    ❍ 32 ng/mL (80 nmoL) is the bottom of the current reference range. Still
    leaves us in a state of substrate starvation which isn't good. And if Quest** did
    your test - see note above - you need to divide by 1.3

    ❍ 40 ng/mL (100 nmoL) the minimum recommended by currently by
    any major D researcher (see grassrootshealth.net).

    ❍ 50 ng/mL (125 nmoL) is the point at which we have sufficient substrate
    for managing calcium levels and have additional to use for other necessary
    physiological functions - including gene expression (300+ other functions in our bodies)

    ❍ 60-65 ng/mL (150-162.5 nmoL) is reasonable number for which to aim.
    It's the 'middle of the current reference range for the major US labs. European
    and canadian labs are behind the times on this one and are still generally using
    a much lower range.

    ❍ 80 ng/mL (200 nmoL) is a target number for some researchers and is still
    within the range of a physiological range of what we could achieve from sun -
    ie a physiologically appropriate level.

    ❍ 100 ng/mL (250 nmoL) is a typical serum level of 25(OH)D obtained by lifeguards,
    in South Florida, from sun only, implying that this is a very physiologically normal -
    possibly optimal? - number for which to aim.

    ❍ 200 ng/mL (500 nmoL) is the lowest blood level of 25(OH)D at which there
    has been documented D toxicity. There has never been a case reported at levels
    lower than that.


    ☑ 1000 IU (25 mcg) per 25 lbs body weight per day is a very reasonable dose of
    D3 for someone who
    → works indoors midday
    → wears clothes midday
    → avoids sun midday
    → wears any sunscreen midday

    ☑ 10,000 IU-50,000 IU vitamin D3 is produced in the skin upon full body exposure
    to sunlight......with the average of the studies being about 20,000 IU. However,
    do not take more than 1000 IU per 25 lbs body weight per day without periodic
    testing of 25(OH)D levels.

    ☑ Don't be afraid to take as much D3 as is required to raise your serum 25(OH)D to
    50-100 ng/mL (125 nmoL to 250 nmoL) There is a 25-50% variation in serum
    vitamin d levels at 'x' amount of supplementation rate due to genetic variations
    in vitamin d binding protein.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19302999
    Clin Biochem. 2009 Jul;42(10-11):1174-7. Epub 2009 Mar 18.Common genetic variants of the
    vitamin D binding protein (DBP) predict differences in response of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin
    D [25(OH)D] to vitamin D supplementation.Fu L, Yun F, Oczak M, Wong BY, Vieth R, Cole DE.
    Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada M5G 1L5.

    ☑Testing: use LabCorp or ZRT
    →consider joining the D Action study, they use ZRT's home test
    details at grassrootshealth.org
    →or order ZRT's test from vitamindcouncil.org
    ZRT donates $10 to that worthy organzation when you order it through them
    →you can also order it directly through ZRT
    →Quest/LabCorp testing project. Test on the same day using Quest and LabCorp -
    get reimursed for up to $100 of your cost:
    http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/proje...-project.shtml

    ☑ Early AM and later afternoon sun exposure on face, hands and arms is not sufficient
    to raise vitamin D levels or maintain optimal vitamin D levels.

    ☑ Fall, Winter and Spring sun exposure is not generally sufficient to raise viamin D levels
    or to maintain optimal D levels.

    ☑ A tan does not necessarily indicate sufficient vitamin D levels. It's easy to tan from UVA
    without getting sufficient UVB to raise D levels.

    ☑ A person (tan or not) who's been getting
    →midday
    →unprotected
    →summer exposure
    →on most body skin
    to the point just before a burn occurs, may have optimal D levels during the summer.

    ☑ The Vitamin D Council (vitamindcouncil.org) has all of the D research, reference cites
    and links to peer reviewed journal articles that you'd ever want to read, plus several thousand extra

    ☑ Grassrootshealth.org has a tremendous amount of good information as well.

    ☑ Stanford and other major D research centers have podcasts in iTunes that are excellent resources.

    ☑Quest's test: What's the problem?
    http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/newsl...008-july.shtml
    excerpted from The Vitamin D Council's July '08 newsletter. Written by John Cannell, MD
    "The two most common are mass spectrometry and a chemiluminescence method, Liaison. The first, mass spectrometry, is highly accurate in the hands of experienced technicians given enough time to do the test properly. However, in the hands of a normally trained technician at a commercial reference lab overwhelmed with 25(OH)D tests, it may give falsely elevated readings, that is, it tells you are ok when in fact you are vitamin D deficient. The second method, Liaison, was recently developed and is the most accurate of the screening, high throughput, methods; LabCorp uses it. Quest Diagnostics reference lab uses mass spec. Again, both Quest and LabCorp are overwhelmed by 25(OH)D requests. The problem is that the faster the technicians do the mass spec test, the more inaccurate it is likely to be. If your 25(OH)D blood test says "Quest Diagnostics" on the top, do not believe you have an adequate level (> 50 ng/ml). You may or may not; the test may be falsely elevated. Let me give you an example. A doctor at my hospital had Quest Diagnostics do a 25(OH)D. It came back as 99 ng/ml of ergocalciferol. He is not taking ergocalciferol (D2), he has never taken ergocalciferol, only cholecalciferol (D3), and he is not taking enough to get a level of 99 ng/ml, 50 ng/ml at the most. His email to Dr. Brett Holmquist at Quest about why Quest Diagnostics identified a substance he was not taking went unanswered other than to say "any friend of Dr. Cannell's is a friend of ours."


    Long story short: if your lab report says "LabCorp" on the top, it is probably accurate; if it says Quest Diagnostics, it may be falsely elevated. While LabCorp has also been overwhelmed with 25(OH)D requests, the Liaison method they use is relatively easy to do and does not rely on technician skill as much as the mass spec methods do. I'm not saying this because I'm a consultant for DiaSorin, who makes Liaison, I'm saying it because it is true. If you don't believe me, get Quest to make me an offer to be their consultant at 10 times what DiaSorin is supposed to be paying me and see how fast I turn Quest down. If Quest fixes their test, I'd love to consult. The ironic thing: I've made both Quest and LabCorp lots of money via this newsletter, the website, and by repeatedly telling the press that people need to know their 25(OH)D level, which has contributed to the skyrocketing sales of 25(OH)D blood tests.


    note that the end, Cannell did not exercise his contract with LabCorp:

    http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/newsl...-disease.shtml

    "In the spirit of full disclosure, I used to be a paid consultant for DiaSorin but have decided not to exercise my contract."


    http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/newsl...-answers.shtml
    excerpted from The Vitamin D Council's July '08 newsletter. Answer written by John Cannell, MD
    Q: "I thought you got Quest to fix their Vitamin D test. On 3/12/09 my vitamin D,25 hydroxy test at Quest Labs came out as 62 ng/mL Whereas on 3/29 at Lab Corps the same test showed 44.2 ng/mL. What's up? Nancy, Rhode Island"

    Cannell answers "Remember, to compare the technique Quest uses to the technique Lab Corp uses you must divide Quest's result by 1.3. So your Quest result was really 48 ng/mL, which is close to Lab Corp's results."

    http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/newsl...-disease.shtml

    "One only has to look at the Wake Forest group's methods section. Unlike the Washington study, which used the gold standard to measure vitamin D (DiaSorin RIA), Wake Forest decided to send their samples out to, you guessed it, Quest Diagnostics. [Katherine's note: literally every research group studying vitamin D uses LabCorp's DiaSorin to test D - Wake Forest seriously missed the boat on this one. Huge misstep. ] For new readers, this newsletter was the first to report Quest's 25(OH)D results were suspicious, in a July 2008 newsletter. [see link and cite above] The New York Times picked up on the story six months later."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/bu...08labtest.html
    "Dr. Binkley said that a few years ago he sent a sample of his blood to six laboratories and got results that ranged from 14 nanograms a milliliter, which would be a deficient level, to 41 nanograms — a level three times as high and considered adequate. While the tests’ consistency has improved since then, there can still be substantial variability, he said."

    had to shorten the post to make it fit - the rest is available at the link
    Last edited by cillakat; 05-11-2010 at 09:20 PM.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •