The great Milk Diet experiment results are in

written by

posted on

November 1, 2019

Being in the dairy business, we hear a lot of rumors about milk on the farm.

One particular rumor really got us curious: You can live on only milk.

So, is this true? We had to look into it more.

We found that some people go on periodic milk only diets to lose weight. We also found that many toddlers go on food strikes, refusing food but gulping down milk. We found a bodybuilder who attempted this to gain weight with no success. We also heard a very strange story about a man who damaged his digestive system as a toddler and drank raw milk only his whole life and was very healthy.

There wasn’t much definitive info out there. So, the only “logical” thing to do was to try it ourselves.

Three of the ladies who work on the farm and myself did a milk diet experiment. We consumed milk only for 7-10 days.

It’s important to note that we are all in good health and eat wholesome omnivorous diets that include dairy and fermented foods. None of us take any medications, just some natural supplements like cod liver oil and elderberry syrup.

We all had similar experiences. Here’s how it went.

On the first day, it felt weird, like we should be eating. Food is so very psychological.

I personally struggled a lot in the middle of the first day. I was tired and started to get a headache. This was strictly due to not having caffeine. I caved and drank a cup of coffee, which I thought was acceptable. So for me it ended up being a milk and coffee diet. Food is psychological, but caffeine dependency is very physically real.

On the second and third day, the smells of food really got to me. I so wanted to eat the salty buttery popcorn my kids were eating. I so wanted to take a bite of braised short ribs, smoked cheddar cheese, and fermented pickles.

All of us reported the biggest struggle of the milk diet being restraining from eating what others were. It felt unsociable, and solid food is yummy.

By day 3, it was simply normal. There was no hunger, no thirst, the same level (or slightly more) energy. It was the same all the way through.

Hmmm. This really gets me thinking. Does milk actually have everything you need to survive?

In case you’re wondering, a gallon of conventional whole milk is about 2,400 calories. Conventional whole milk is 88% water and has 7.7 grams of protein, 11.7 grams of carbs, 12.3 grams of sugar, 0 grams of fiber, and 8 grams of fat. It’s also a good source of Vitamin B12, calcium, riboflavin, phosphorous, and other vitamins and minerals.

And, I assume that, if you’re sourcing from a small farmer that’s monitoring soil quality and producing 100% grass fed milk, many of those numbers will be boosted.

During the milk diet experiment, each of us drank between ½-1 gallon of milk per day.

Over the course of 10 days, everyone, including myself, reported losing weight. Nothing significant, anywhere from 1-8 lbs.

For me, I think it was due to the lack of empty calories. My body was using everything it took in.

Also, when you take the psychology out of eating, you eat what you need, nothing more and nothing less.

So, what did we learn?

We learned that milk satisfies hunger completely. We learned that we consume more food than we need to. The ladies on the farm all reported the biggest success was practicing self discipline.

My biggest takeaway from the milk only experiment is that milk is a great and wholesome snack.

My kids seem to always be hungry. Ten minutes after a meal, they want a snack. So now, I offer them a glass of milk! It’s filling. It’s nutritious. And, it will certainly tide you over before the next meal.

Would I do the milk diet again? Probably not. But, I am glad I did it once. The ladies on the farm all gave an emphatic yes to doing the milk diet again, especially if they’re dealing with a chronic disease or are struggling with gut/digestive issues.

What do you think? Would you do the milk diet?

Raw Dairy

Health and Nutrition

Opinion

Our bone broth tested negative-ish for heavy metals 🥳 NATURAL AND CLEAN

Over the past few months a bunch of people asked us if we tested our bone broth for toxic heavy metals. When we get the same question a lot, we of course look into it. My first question was --- Is there an issue with toxic metals in bone broth? As it turns out, yes, there "can" be an issue! Heavy metals are naturally present in our environment. We need the "good" heavy metals to thrive: iron, zinc, magnesium, copper, etc. But, we can 100% do without the toxic heavy metals: arsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury, etc. Too many toxic heavy metals can lead to a host of pretty awful issues: nervous system damage, cardiovascular issues, cancer, endocrine disruption, kidney damage, and so on. Our body is designed to excrete heavy metals through urine (and a little bit through sweat, hair, and breastmilk too)... but only so much. There's a limit. If you're overloaded, your body will store those heavy metals in your bones, blood, tissues, and organs. Similarly, if an animal is exposed to heavy metals via food, water, air, dust, or soil, those heavy metals accumulate in the bones. Maybe the farm's soil or air is contaminated from a nearby factory. Maybe the pipes for the water has lead solder connecting them. Maybe the feed a farm is buying was grown on contaminated soil or processed on contaminated equipment. And, of course, a main purpose of bone broth is drawing out as much as possible from the bones. If there are heavy metals in bones, they will make their way into the broth. This is especially true when you pre-soak with apple cider vinegar and simmer for 48 hours to make it thick and gelatinous (like our broth). And that led me to my second question --- Should I be concerned about every bone broth? Where is the fear coming from? Well... it seems it might be a little political. There was a study done in the UK in 2013 that scared a lot of people. It's titled "The Risk of Lead Contamination in Bone Broth Diets". This study found high levels of lead in organic chicken bone broth, which is quite concerning. And, in fact, this one study is still cited in articles written today! Let's dig a little deeper. Let's go farther than the short abstract. Here are the broths tested in the study and their test results for lead: (9.5 parts per billion): Broth made from tap water plus skin and cartilage(7.01 parts per billion): Broth made from tap water plus bones(2.3 parts per billion): Broth made from tap water plus meat(0.89 parts per billion): Tap water alone cooked for the same amount of time as a control. But, they only used organic chicken from one farm. And, there's zero information about that farm, their practices, the feed, and the broth recipe. Did they use vinegar or wine in the broth? Was the chicken's water contaminated with lead? What was the quality of the feed and the soil? Were the chickens raised indoors or outdoors? So many unanswered questions! All we get is that it was one "organic chicken" that created a lead issue with broth. Another curious thing is that the broth with skin and cartilage contained more lead than the broth made with just bones. Bones are where lead is stored, so why wouldn't the broth made with bones only contain more lead? It's an odd result. Moreover, the abstract of the study specifically called out "bone broth diets" like GAPS and paleo. They even go so far as to write, "In view of the dangers of lead consumption to the human body, we recommend that doctors and nutritionists take the risk of lead contamination into consideration when advising patients about bone broth diets." That's quite curious. Why are they worried about these diets? Are the researchers anti healing through food? Who funded the research? Is it political? My opinion? This study is not comprehensive. It does not speak to all bone broths. But it does cover a potential issue if the water or animals are overloaded with heavy metals. What I glean from this study is that we need more research. We don't need fear to spread and people to stop drinking broth from this one study. Regardless of whether the fear was fabricated or legit, we tested our bone broth anyway. After all, it's always nice to validate that your food choices are as clean as you think. For Miller's, here were my concerns before testing: What if there's mercury in the fishmeal in our chicken feed?What if the soil that our animals live on is contaminated?What is the well water that the broth is made with is contaminated?What if the Celtic sea salt has lots of heavy metals? We got the test results back. I was super excited. But, I was also confused. At face value, it appeared that our bone broth tested NEGATIVE for arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury. You can find the test results right here! You'll notice that, for every sample, the results are "<0.01 mg/kg" and "<0.02 mg/kg". I asked the lab what the "<" means. They said that it indicates their limit of quantitation (LOQ), the lowest concentration that can be accurately tested using the test procedure in that sample type. So the results simply report that none of the metals tested were found in the sample above the specific reporting LOQs. Whether or not they were present below this LOQ is information that is not provided by the test. When talking to the lab, I told them what we needed and assumed that this test would go below a 1 ppb. So, when the results came in, I assumed that a "mg/kg" was the same as a part per billion (ppb). Ummm... that math wasn't write! A "mg/kg" is actually a part per million (ppm). That means that the test we ran had results saying that the broth had less than 0.02 ppm (or 20 ppb) of arsenic and lead. And, it had less than 0.01 ppm (or 10 ppb) of cadmium and mercury. For some reference, the EPA says that less than 15 ppb of lead is safe in drinking water. Not saying that I agree, but it's a good reference point. These results are good. It means the broth definitely isn't overloaded with toxic heavy metals. But, it's not good enough!!! We need to test again! We really need to a lower LOQ. We need to know the results with an accuracy of as low as 1 ppb. It looks like the lab we sent the original samples to doesn't have an LOQ that low. So here I am on the hunt for a lab to do it again. As soon as I can, I'll send samples in again and paying for more expensive testing to get the info you deserve. Stay tuned! I hope to have the new results in by the end of April 2025. Do you worry about toxic metals (or other junk) in your food? Where have your fears stemmed from? I'd love to hear from you. You can comment below (no account required) or contact us 😊 ----- Sources The risk of lead contamination in bone broth dietsBone Broth and Lead Toxicity: Should You Be Concerned?Bone Broth and Lead Contamination: A Very Flawed Study in Medical HypothesesBone Broth, Collagen, and Toxic Metals: A Research Review

Celebrating the Heritage of Corn on National Popcorn Lovers Day

You've probably heard a lot about GMO corn and its controversies, but did you know that corn, or maize as many Native Americans call it, is a cherished heritage food? Let's take a closer look at corn and learn about its history.

If animals eat wheat, does the gluten transfer to the eggs and meat?

We've been getting this question a good amount lately --- If your chickens and pigs eat wheat, which contains gluten, then do your eggs, chicken, and pork contain gluten, too? Super interesting question. I mean, the saying "you are what you eat" holds true to some extent. But... digestion is the opposite of simple. The short answer is --- Gluten in animal feed does NOT transfer to eggs or meat. Eggs are meat are naturally gluten-free. You see, just like you, when an animal eats gluten, the gluten is broken down into amino acids during digestion. Then, those amino acids are reassembled into a variety of things that support life and growth - proteins, hormones, neurotransmitters, etc. We have anecdotal evidence, too. There are many Miller's customers with Celiac disease or gluten sensitivities that handle our eggs, chicken, and pork without any issues. In fact, some say that our eggs and meat are the only they can tolerate - wow! A little caveat --- cross contamination. Here are two scenarios: What if a butcher uses products on meat or surfaces that contain gluten? I mean the list of approved sanitizers is loooong. This isn't a worry with our foods. Our eggs and chicken only ever touch water. And our pork is washed in organic apple cider vinegar.Can gluten be added to foods like sausages or pies or lunchmeat? Yes. Some baking sodas and spice blends contain gluten. And some trace ingredients (that don't need to be on the label) like maltodextrin or modified food starch may contain gluten. This isn't a worry with our foods. We try to keep things as pure as possible. Intolerances and sensitivities can be complicated. Some people react to parts of gluten, not the whole molecule. During digestion, gluten is broken down into peptides in your intestinal tract. Then, those peptides are broken down into amino acids. Amino acids are the building blocks of life. They're reassembled (with other things like broken down vitamins and minerals) into important stuff that your body needs - proteins, tissue, enzymes, hormones. People with confusing (and sometimes inconsistent) reactions might be having a reaction to a specific peptide or part of a molecule. It might now be the whole molecule that's giving you trouble! That's why many people with gluten sensitivity do fine with sourdough and/or einkorn (in fact, we even have a customer with Celiac disease that loves our sourdough einkorn crackers). Sourdough partially digests the gluten for you and possibly changes the way your body breaks it down. And einkorn is a heritage grain that contains a completely different kind of gluten compared to conventional wheat - gluten AA. There's actually a certain test you can take to give you more info. It's called a Zoomer test. Instead of simply seeing if you're reacting to a whole protein, it sees how your body responds to individual peptides. Neat! Or maybe people aren't reacting to wheat itself. Rather, they're reacting to chemicals sprayed on wheat. Many people with gluten sensitivity go to Europe and eat all the bread. Why is this? Well, maybe it's because glyphosate is banned in Europe. But here in the US, we're still spraying it on conventional wheat to dry it out quickly and get it ready for harvest. It could be that some people are reacting to a chemical on wheat... not the wheat itself. I mean, glyphosate is known for disrupting the gut! This could explain why some people don't do well with some eggs and meat but do just fine with ours. After all, we have the highest natural standards and aim to give you the purest food possible, down to the nitty gritty. What have you experienced? Are you sensitive or allergic to gluten but can handle eggs and meat? How do our eggs and meat feel for you? I'd love to hear from you. Comment below (no account required - just start typing) or contact us 😊 ----- Sources Are Eggs From Grain-Fed Chickens Safe to Eat on a Gluten-Free Diet?Zoomers Food Sensitivity Testing 101: Your Path to Food Sensitivity AwarenessIs RoundUp Giving You a Pain in the Gut?

The great Milk Diet experiment results are in

More from the blog

Our bone broth tested negative-ish for heavy metals 🥳 NATURAL AND CLEAN

Celebrating the Heritage of Corn on National Popcorn Lovers Day

If animals eat wheat, does the gluten transfer to the eggs and meat?

Do

Learn

Uphold

Connect

Miller's Bio Farm, 523 Valley Road, Quarryville, PA 17566