"Lactase nonpersistence is most prevalent in people of East Asian descent, with 70 to 100 percent of people affected in these communities."
Masai herdsmen are East Africans; so I find that statistic bewildering. "Lactase nonpersistence" means the decline of the production of the enzyme lactase beyond infancy. I don't know whether lactase nonpersistence is equivalent to lactose intolerance.
A (very small) percentage of the population is alergic to peanuts. They can even die if they ingest a peanut by accident. Does it make so that "peanuts are bad for you"? Can I make this argument? Milk is perfectly fine and is an important part of a healthy diet, for 90% of the population of the Americas, Europe, Africa etc. The magnitude of the propaganda to make people think otherwise simply baffles me.
> Tell that to the Massai, that live basically on a diet of milk, meat and blood
They also live a mainly active, nomadic lifestyle herding cows rather than sitting down staring at a computer screen - and usually die in their forties.
They specifically adapted to survive on that diet due to both group level isolation and individual upbringing (gut bacteria development). Different socio-cultural groups often have different tolerance for common food items.
It's indifferent to the question. Some food is either healthy for human consumption or it's not. The argument is: if a population of humans exist that makes milk a very substantial portion of their diet, and is perfectly fine, arguing that it's bad for humans is complete stupidity.
"Lactase nonpersistence is most prevalent in people of East Asian descent, with 70 to 100 percent of people affected in these communities."
Masai herdsmen are East Africans; so I find that statistic bewildering. "Lactase nonpersistence" means the decline of the production of the enzyme lactase beyond infancy. I don't know whether lactase nonpersistence is equivalent to lactose intolerance.