Gluten free, sugar free, dairy free... who is with me?
Replies
-
Jesus Christ why are you so nasty to each other? We can't compare fruit with a mars bar anyway. The fruit has fiber, vitamins and minerals which help keeping the appetite stabilized and give proper nutrition! And dairy? You're a freaking human, not a cow so it's okay not to have it in your diet even when you're NOT intolerant or allergic to it. Now for gluten, if you're not sick I don't see any reason why to avoid it but if it works for one then it's good, you don't have to play the "i know better than you because I am SO much better" card.
I eat all of the things she says she avoids but still... who am I to criticize and belittle one? Jeez there's no need to be mean. Maybe you need to up your calories a bit.
PS: Some responses have been nice and/or honest, so my text doesn't go to all who responded.
The irony of this post.
I got to admit that the comment about upping the calories was a little mean itself. I apologize, I was acting out of emotion
It just hit me that some people are playing the experts in order to "reduce" the person who began the topic. 
Yet, you are reducing people by comparing them to baby cows if they consume dairy...Go figure.
It's a fact that it is food not meant for us but for the cow though, no matter how you take it.
Unless "fact" has an alternate meaning to you, no, it's not a fact at all.
I guess you don't understand what "meant" means. I hope you know that a cow to produce milk must first give birth. Pretty much like any other land mammal. The fact that we consume e.g a liter of it means that a baby cow isn't. So, yeah no matter what you say it's a food originally meant for a baby cow and not a human or a dog or a sheep etc.
I am just curious what proof you have that by humans consuming a liter means that the cow no longer has sufficient quantity to be malnourished. I have never seen any study that shows a milk produces the exact amount needed per calf thus any taken from that quantity deprives the calf. Unrelated to the post in general, but it did peak my interest1 -
MaryYoungmark wrote: »Ok let me clarify... I do eat fruit. I cut out processed sugars. I basically follow a paleo diet, but not 100% I eat brown rice and some legumes. I do understand that to some this sounds totally scary. But I've shed 40 pounds since January, I am heavier. The amount of energy I now have is crazy, I fully enjoy this lifestyle because of how amazing I feel. I have 0 cravings, 0 blood sugar dips, my mind is clearer, etc. I do have pcos and hormones are regulating. I have considered someday reintroducing some foods on occasion. But I do not miss processed foods and I do not miss feeling tired and groggy.
how are you defining processed?
you do realize that processed sugar and fruit sugar are the same, right?
the reason that you lost weight is because you replaced calories dense foods with less calorie dense foods; the reason that you feel better and have more energy is because you lost weight.
4 -
Salmon is only meant to be food for bears...12
-
Jesus Christ why are you so nasty to each other? We can't compare fruit with a mars bar anyway. The fruit has fiber, vitamins and minerals which help keeping the appetite stabilized and give proper nutrition! And dairy? You're a freaking human, not a cow so it's okay not to have it in your diet even when you're NOT intolerant or allergic to it. Now for gluten, if you're not sick I don't see any reason why to avoid it but if it works for one then it's good, you don't have to play the "i know better than you because I am SO much better" card.
I eat all of the things she says she avoids but still... who am I to criticize and belittle one? Jeez there's no need to be mean. Maybe you need to up your calories a bit.
PS: Some responses have been nice and/or honest, so my text doesn't go to all who responded.
The irony of this post.
I got to admit that the comment about upping the calories was a little mean itself. I apologize, I was acting out of emotion It just hit me that some people are playing the experts in order to "reduce" the person who began the topic.
Yet, you are reducing people by comparing them to baby cows if they consume dairy...Go figure.
It's a fact that it is food not meant for us but for the cow though, no matter how you take it.
Unless "fact" has an alternate meaning to you, no, it's not a fact at all.
I guess you don't understand what "meant" means. I hope you know that a cow to produce milk must first give birth. Pretty much like any other land mammal. The fact that we consume e.g a liter of it means that a baby cow isn't. So, yeah no matter what you say it's a food originally meant for a baby cow and not a human or a dog or a sheep etc.
I am just curious what proof you have that by humans consuming a liter means that the cow no longer has sufficient quantity to be malnourished. I have never seen any study that shows a milk produces the exact amount needed per calf thus any taken from that quantity deprives the calf. Unrelated to the post in general, but it did peak my interest
yea, I guess I missed all these malnourished cows running around....3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Jesus Christ why are you so nasty to each other? We can't compare fruit with a mars bar anyway. The fruit has fiber, vitamins and minerals which help keeping the appetite stabilized and give proper nutrition! And dairy? You're a freaking human, not a cow so it's okay not to have it in your diet even when you're NOT intolerant or allergic to it. Now for gluten, if you're not sick I don't see any reason why to avoid it but if it works for one then it's good, you don't have to play the "i know better than you because I am SO much better" card.
I eat all of the things she says she avoids but still... who am I to criticize and belittle one? Jeez there's no need to be mean. Maybe you need to up your calories a bit.
PS: Some responses have been nice and/or honest, so my text doesn't go to all who responded.
The irony of this post.
I got to admit that the comment about upping the calories was a little mean itself. I apologize, I was acting out of emotion It just hit me that some people are playing the experts in order to "reduce" the person who began the topic.
Yet, you are reducing people by comparing them to baby cows if they consume dairy...Go figure.
It's a fact that it is food not meant for us but for the cow though, no matter how you take it.
Unless "fact" has an alternate meaning to you, no, it's not a fact at all.
I guess you don't understand what "meant" means. I hope you know that a cow to produce milk must first give birth. Pretty much like any other land mammal. The fact that we consume e.g a liter of it means that a baby cow isn't. So, yeah no matter what you say it's a food originally meant for a baby cow and not a human or a dog or a sheep etc.
That doesn't mean it's the only thing it's meant for, and it's not "meant" to be human food. Under the same exact rationale you could say that no animals or plants are "meant" to be human food. Like I said, clams about "meant" aren't fact claims, they are philosophical ones that we impose.
Hmm... it's just that milk is produced for the sole purpose of feeding the baby, no matter the mammal species. As humans we take advantage of it for good or for bad. So, an animal or a plant can be a food source, but the dairy is still not necessary for us, technically it's for the baby.
Still I eat and drink dairy because of the protein, the taste and the fact that I am not a meat and especially fish person (not vegetarian though). What I said, not natural doesn't necessarily mean bad.0 -
I'm glad it's working for you but I couldn't be that restrictive in my diet.0
-
Jesus Christ why are you so nasty to each other? We can't compare fruit with a mars bar anyway. The fruit has fiber, vitamins and minerals which help keeping the appetite stabilized and give proper nutrition! And dairy? You're a freaking human, not a cow so it's okay not to have it in your diet even when you're NOT intolerant or allergic to it. Now for gluten, if you're not sick I don't see any reason why to avoid it but if it works for one then it's good, you don't have to play the "i know better than you because I am SO much better" card.
I eat all of the things she says she avoids but still... who am I to criticize and belittle one? Jeez there's no need to be mean. Maybe you need to up your calories a bit.
PS: Some responses have been nice and/or honest, so my text doesn't go to all who responded.
The irony of this post.
I got to admit that the comment about upping the calories was a little mean itself. I apologize, I was acting out of emotion It just hit me that some people are playing the experts in order to "reduce" the person who began the topic.
Yet, you are reducing people by comparing them to baby cows if they consume dairy...Go figure.
It's a fact that it is food not meant for us but for the cow though, no matter how you take it.
Unless "fact" has an alternate meaning to you, no, it's not a fact at all.
I guess you don't understand what "meant" means. I hope you know that a cow to produce milk must first give birth. Pretty much like any other land mammal. The fact that we consume e.g a liter of it means that a baby cow isn't. So, yeah no matter what you say it's a food originally meant for a baby cow and not a human or a dog or a sheep etc.
I am just curious what proof you have that by humans consuming a liter means that the cow no longer has sufficient quantity to be malnourished. I have never seen any study that shows a milk produces the exact amount needed per calf thus any taken from that quantity deprives the calf. Unrelated to the post in general, but it did peak my interest
The baby cows are either slaughtered for young meat (don't know the english word for it) or fed supplements if they're female so they take all they can from the cow. However, in small farms they usually let the baby breast feed as well as taking milk from the cow. For example, my uncle and aunt in Greece let their baby cows still breast feed, however they also take milk for selling. The babies are also given supplements anyway. In big farms this wouldn't happen. You gotta take as much as you can to sell it as low as you can.1 -
I don't understand how a chocolate bar isn't natural. Or most candy for that matter. Chocolate comes from cacao, sugar from cane, caramel is cooked sugar, cocoa butter again from cacao.9
-
It's awesome you found something that works for you! I eat gluten, sugar, and dairy in pretty much every meal and I'm a healthy weight, feel great and thoroughly enjoy my diet.
OP, if you are a little surprised by the responses you are getting - you will find that in general any overly restrictive diet for anything other than medical conditions is frowned upon here in the MFP forums. There is no scientific basis for gluten or dairy being bad for anyone other than those who are celiac or lactose intolerant.
It's also not necessary to eat gluten free and dairy free to eat a "whole foods diet", although just like "clean eating" I'd bet that term is used to mean different things by different people.
Regardless, congrats on finding a WOE that works for you - that really is the key to success! Just know that if it becomes too difficult, you could probably back off some of those restrictions and still see success. 4 -
VintageFeline wrote: »I don't understand how a chocolate bar isn't natural. Or most candy for that matter. Chocolate comes from cacao, sugar from cane, caramel is cooked sugar, cocoa butter again from cacao.
Cacao and cane are plants - chocolate bar is a salad. YAY!11 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Jesus Christ why are you so nasty to each other?
No one was nasty.We can't compare fruit with a mars bar anyway. The fruit has fiber, vitamins and minerals which help keeping the appetite stabilized and give proper nutrition!
No one said all foods are the same. But the sugars are. They are different for reasons other than the sugars.And dairy? You're a freaking human, not a cow so it's okay not to have it in your diet even when you're NOT intolerant or allergic to it.
Yes, it's absolutely okay not to consume it. Lots of people do have issues with it, and many have ethical issues. But what should be challenged is the idea that it is nutritionally bad for most people (people without issues with it) to consume it.who am I to criticize and belittle one? Jeez there's no need to be mean.
I think you are reading this into the responses. For example, my concern was to correct bad information. I was not being mean or belittling, and I think being paleo if one likes it is fine. I just don't think it's true that paleo is a more healthful way to eat than many other healthful diets that do include dairy, grains (the paleo issue is not actually gluten alone), and the rest.
I actually found your response interesting and nowhere near nasty. There were some responses that triggered me, that's all.
Thanks, we probably all read with our own biases. I read into OP's post the idea that gluten, dairy, and sugar are BAD for us (although I tried to respond neutrally and not assume that was her claim, that's also why I asked). I think you are seeing people's responses as saying no one SHOULD eat the way she does, when they are reactions to perceived claims that it is BETTER or that people OUGHT TO eat that way. Maybe that helps explain the different perceptions?I didn't say that the sugar in fruit isn't sugar but I said it can't be compared to the sugar found in most sweets that don't come with fiber and vitamins and are not natural. We need the sugar for a well-functioning body and brain.
No, you didn't, but a prior poster did, and my prior response about sugar was to that poster. You did say that not all foods are the same, but I don't think anyone was claiming otherwise -- pointing out that sugar is sugar does not mean that foods are foods, but it does show that fearing a bit of sugar added to smoked salmon as part of the processing as "bad" but thinking a banana is fine doesn't make much sense.
Also, a keto person would probably argue that you don't NEED any sugar, and you don't, but of course many nutrient dense diets include foods with sugar (like vegetables) and cutting out those is generally not going to be a healthy thing to do (although there are exceptions).As for dairy I don't think it's natural to consume it
Why is it less natural to consume dairy than to eat meat or corn or broccoli or bananas? Biologically the "purpose" of all of those is NOT to be consumed by humans. (I don't really care about what's natural anyway -- wearing clothes isn't or cooking, but I'm not giving up either -- but my mind just finds such questions interesting.)It's a fine source of protein and minerals. Whatever is not natural doesn't mean it's bad. We see it with technology as well. It's not natural for humans to spend time on a screen, yet we get information we would hardly have access to 30 years ago.
We agree about this, but when it comes to what something is MEANT for, that's just not a factual question, as nothing is really "meant" for us to consume unless you look at it wholly from our POV (if we can eat it it's meant to be our food) -- which would not eliminate dairy -- or add on some theological or philosophical argument.That's what I also believe. There isn't ONE superior diet. And yes a healthful diet can contain grains, dairy, meats etc.
Yep, we agree on this.3 -
Jesus Christ why are you so nasty to each other? We can't compare fruit with a mars bar anyway. The fruit has fiber, vitamins and minerals which help keeping the appetite stabilized and give proper nutrition! And dairy? You're a freaking human, not a cow so it's okay not to have it in your diet even when you're NOT intolerant or allergic to it. Now for gluten, if you're not sick I don't see any reason why to avoid it but if it works for one then it's good, you don't have to play the "i know better than you because I am SO much better" card.
I eat all of the things she says she avoids but still... who am I to criticize and belittle one? Jeez there's no need to be mean. Maybe you need to up your calories a bit.
PS: Some responses have been nice and/or honest, so my text doesn't go to all who responded.
The irony of this post.
I got to admit that the comment about upping the calories was a little mean itself. I apologize, I was acting out of emotion It just hit me that some people are playing the experts in order to "reduce" the person who began the topic.
Yet, you are reducing people by comparing them to baby cows if they consume dairy...Go figure.
It's a fact that it is food not meant for us but for the cow though, no matter how you take it.
Unless "fact" has an alternate meaning to you, no, it's not a fact at all.
I guess you don't understand what "meant" means. I hope you know that a cow to produce milk must first give birth. Pretty much like any other land mammal. The fact that we consume e.g a liter of it means that a baby cow isn't. So, yeah no matter what you say it's a food originally meant for a baby cow and not a human or a dog or a sheep etc.
I am just curious what proof you have that by humans consuming a liter means that the cow no longer has sufficient quantity to be malnourished. I have never seen any study that shows a milk produces the exact amount needed per calf thus any taken from that quantity deprives the calf. Unrelated to the post in general, but it did peak my interest
The baby cows are either slaughtered for young meat (don't know the english word for it) or fed supplements if they're female so they take all they can from the cow. However, in small farms they usually let the baby breast feed as well as taking milk from the cow. For example, my uncle and aunt in Greece let their baby cows still breast feed, however they also take milk for selling. The babies are also given supplements anyway. In big farms this wouldn't happen. You gotta take as much as you can to sell it as low as you can.
The word in English for meat from a calf is "veal."3 -
Op sounds like a fun free diet.
I think it's far more important to focus on a sustainable way of eating so you set yourself up nicely for maintaining your weight loss. If this is sustainable to you then great. If you think it might not be, I'd reconsider.2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Jesus Christ why are you so nasty to each other? We can't compare fruit with a mars bar anyway. The fruit has fiber, vitamins and minerals which help keeping the appetite stabilized and give proper nutrition! And dairy? You're a freaking human, not a cow so it's okay not to have it in your diet even when you're NOT intolerant or allergic to it. Now for gluten, if you're not sick I don't see any reason why to avoid it but if it works for one then it's good, you don't have to play the "i know better than you because I am SO much better" card.
I eat all of the things she says she avoids but still... who am I to criticize and belittle one? Jeez there's no need to be mean. Maybe you need to up your calories a bit.
PS: Some responses have been nice and/or honest, so my text doesn't go to all who responded.
The irony of this post.
I got to admit that the comment about upping the calories was a little mean itself. I apologize, I was acting out of emotion It just hit me that some people are playing the experts in order to "reduce" the person who began the topic.
Yet, you are reducing people by comparing them to baby cows if they consume dairy...Go figure.
It's a fact that it is food not meant for us but for the cow though, no matter how you take it.
Unless "fact" has an alternate meaning to you, no, it's not a fact at all.
I guess you don't understand what "meant" means. I hope you know that a cow to produce milk must first give birth. Pretty much like any other land mammal. The fact that we consume e.g a liter of it means that a baby cow isn't. So, yeah no matter what you say it's a food originally meant for a baby cow and not a human or a dog or a sheep etc.
That doesn't mean it's the only thing it's meant for, and it's not "meant" to be human food. Under the same exact rationale you could say that no animals or plants are "meant" to be human food. Like I said, clams about "meant" aren't fact claims, they are philosophical ones that we impose.
Hmm... it's just that milk is produced for the sole purpose of feeding the baby, no matter the mammal species.
It's not produced with a purpose. It's a process that happens without intent unless you add it on (which is theological or philosophical). Similarly, the baby cow is not born with the intent to give him to us to eat, so under the same logic any meat eating would be unnatural. The natural purpose of plants growing isn't to be food, but to reproduce, under the same logic.
(I made basically this same point in my other reply, so feel free to consolidate if you want to continue the discussion.)As humans we take advantage of it for good or for bad. So, an animal or a plant can be a food source, but the dairy is still not necessary for us, technically it's for the baby.
Not necessary doesn't mean "not meant for," as absolutely no one food is necessary.2 -
OP - no need to defend yourself in your WOE -- you keep on doing what makes you feel good! I, also, cut gluten, (hypothroid/Hashimoto) limit added sugars (I eat a lot of fruit/veggies), cut way back on dairy (but CHEESE? Do not wish to cut it totally - Never!) We started eating loads of veggies (roasted, salads, raw) and fruits with a lot of lean proteins and WOW! The effort to feel better resulted in 70# lost and I can run circles around folks 1/2 my age now. Then I started reading the comments from so many that said you CAN eat whatever and lose weight - confused me, started eating whatever and felt like *&^%. Went back to what makes me feel better, sleep better, run better, clearer mind....so, moral of my story - no need to defend and You keep on doing you!4
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Jesus Christ why are you so nasty to each other? We can't compare fruit with a mars bar anyway. The fruit has fiber, vitamins and minerals which help keeping the appetite stabilized and give proper nutrition! And dairy? You're a freaking human, not a cow so it's okay not to have it in your diet even when you're NOT intolerant or allergic to it. Now for gluten, if you're not sick I don't see any reason why to avoid it but if it works for one then it's good, you don't have to play the "i know better than you because I am SO much better" card.
I eat all of the things she says she avoids but still... who am I to criticize and belittle one? Jeez there's no need to be mean. Maybe you need to up your calories a bit.
PS: Some responses have been nice and/or honest, so my text doesn't go to all who responded.
The irony of this post.
I got to admit that the comment about upping the calories was a little mean itself. I apologize, I was acting out of emotion It just hit me that some people are playing the experts in order to "reduce" the person who began the topic.
Yet, you are reducing people by comparing them to baby cows if they consume dairy...Go figure.
It's a fact that it is food not meant for us but for the cow though, no matter how you take it.
Unless "fact" has an alternate meaning to you, no, it's not a fact at all.
I guess you don't understand what "meant" means. I hope you know that a cow to produce milk must first give birth. Pretty much like any other land mammal. The fact that we consume e.g a liter of it means that a baby cow isn't. So, yeah no matter what you say it's a food originally meant for a baby cow and not a human or a dog or a sheep etc.
That doesn't mean it's the only thing it's meant for, and it's not "meant" to be human food. Under the same exact rationale you could say that no animals or plants are "meant" to be human food. Like I said, clams about "meant" aren't fact claims, they are philosophical ones that we impose.
Hmm... it's just that milk is produced for the sole purpose of feeding the baby, no matter the mammal species.
It's not produced with a purpose. It's a process that happens without intent unless you add it on (which is theological or philosophical). Similarly, the baby cow is not born with the intent to give him to us to eat, so under the same logic any meat eating would be unnatural. The natural purpose of plants growing isn't to be food, but to reproduce, under the same logic.
(I made basically this same point in my other reply, so feel free to consolidate if you want to continue the discussion.)As humans we take advantage of it for good or for bad. So, an animal or a plant can be a food source, but the dairy is still not necessary for us, technically it's for the baby.
Not necessary doesn't mean "not meant for," as absolutely no one food is necessary.
The thing is that dairy in particular isn't natural for humans apart from the theological or philosophical aspect which I am not concerned with on this topic. Cow milk is created as a hormonal response to feed the calf and no more. It wasn't made for any of us or another animal. A cow or any other mammal won't provide milk if not first impregnated. Yet, not looking from an ethical or philosophical view, dairy is not bad for us unless we consume it excessively (as with guess what? everything!). Is it natural for humans to consume something made specifically for cows or kittens or goats? Absolutely not. Is it ethical? You be the judge. Is it bad? Nope. Science approves that last opinion.
0 -
OP, I believe there is a group here for those who eat Paleo. Not telling you to leave or anything, but you might find such a group to be more supportive.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Jesus Christ why are you so nasty to each other? We can't compare fruit with a mars bar anyway. The fruit has fiber, vitamins and minerals which help keeping the appetite stabilized and give proper nutrition! And dairy? You're a freaking human, not a cow so it's okay not to have it in your diet even when you're NOT intolerant or allergic to it. Now for gluten, if you're not sick I don't see any reason why to avoid it but if it works for one then it's good, you don't have to play the "i know better than you because I am SO much better" card.
I eat all of the things she says she avoids but still... who am I to criticize and belittle one? Jeez there's no need to be mean. Maybe you need to up your calories a bit.
PS: Some responses have been nice and/or honest, so my text doesn't go to all who responded.
The irony of this post.
I got to admit that the comment about upping the calories was a little mean itself. I apologize, I was acting out of emotion It just hit me that some people are playing the experts in order to "reduce" the person who began the topic.
Yet, you are reducing people by comparing them to baby cows if they consume dairy...Go figure.
It's a fact that it is food not meant for us but for the cow though, no matter how you take it.
Unless "fact" has an alternate meaning to you, no, it's not a fact at all.
I guess you don't understand what "meant" means. I hope you know that a cow to produce milk must first give birth. Pretty much like any other land mammal. The fact that we consume e.g a liter of it means that a baby cow isn't. So, yeah no matter what you say it's a food originally meant for a baby cow and not a human or a dog or a sheep etc.
That doesn't mean it's the only thing it's meant for, and it's not "meant" to be human food. Under the same exact rationale you could say that no animals or plants are "meant" to be human food. Like I said, clams about "meant" aren't fact claims, they are philosophical ones that we impose.
Hmm... it's just that milk is produced for the sole purpose of feeding the baby, no matter the mammal species.
It's not produced with a purpose. It's a process that happens without intent unless you add it on (which is theological or philosophical). Similarly, the baby cow is not born with the intent to give him to us to eat, so under the same logic any meat eating would be unnatural. The natural purpose of plants growing isn't to be food, but to reproduce, under the same logic.
(I made basically this same point in my other reply, so feel free to consolidate if you want to continue the discussion.)As humans we take advantage of it for good or for bad. So, an animal or a plant can be a food source, but the dairy is still not necessary for us, technically it's for the baby.
Not necessary doesn't mean "not meant for," as absolutely no one food is necessary.
The thing is that dairy in particular isn't natural for humans apart from the theological or philosophical aspect which I am not concerned with on this topic. Cow milk is created as a hormonal response to feed the calf and no more. It wasn't made for any of us or another animal. A cow or any other mammal won't provide milk if not first impregnated. Yet, not looking from an ethical or philosophical view, dairy is not bad for us unless we consume it excessively (as with guess what? everything!). Is it natural for humans to consume something made specifically for cows or kittens or goats? Absolutely not. Is it ethical? You be the judge. Is it bad? Nope. Science approves that last opinion.
Can you explain the difference between drinking cows milk being "unnatural" but eating cow meat being "natural"?7 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Jesus Christ why are you so nasty to each other? We can't compare fruit with a mars bar anyway. The fruit has fiber, vitamins and minerals which help keeping the appetite stabilized and give proper nutrition! And dairy? You're a freaking human, not a cow so it's okay not to have it in your diet even when you're NOT intolerant or allergic to it. Now for gluten, if you're not sick I don't see any reason why to avoid it but if it works for one then it's good, you don't have to play the "i know better than you because I am SO much better" card.
I eat all of the things she says she avoids but still... who am I to criticize and belittle one? Jeez there's no need to be mean. Maybe you need to up your calories a bit.
PS: Some responses have been nice and/or honest, so my text doesn't go to all who responded.
The irony of this post.
I got to admit that the comment about upping the calories was a little mean itself. I apologize, I was acting out of emotion It just hit me that some people are playing the experts in order to "reduce" the person who began the topic.
Yet, you are reducing people by comparing them to baby cows if they consume dairy...Go figure.
It's a fact that it is food not meant for us but for the cow though, no matter how you take it.
Unless "fact" has an alternate meaning to you, no, it's not a fact at all.
I guess you don't understand what "meant" means. I hope you know that a cow to produce milk must first give birth. Pretty much like any other land mammal. The fact that we consume e.g a liter of it means that a baby cow isn't. So, yeah no matter what you say it's a food originally meant for a baby cow and not a human or a dog or a sheep etc.
That doesn't mean it's the only thing it's meant for, and it's not "meant" to be human food. Under the same exact rationale you could say that no animals or plants are "meant" to be human food. Like I said, clams about "meant" aren't fact claims, they are philosophical ones that we impose.
Hmm... it's just that milk is produced for the sole purpose of feeding the baby, no matter the mammal species.
It's not produced with a purpose. It's a process that happens without intent unless you add it on (which is theological or philosophical). Similarly, the baby cow is not born with the intent to give him to us to eat, so under the same logic any meat eating would be unnatural. The natural purpose of plants growing isn't to be food, but to reproduce, under the same logic.
(I made basically this same point in my other reply, so feel free to consolidate if you want to continue the discussion.)As humans we take advantage of it for good or for bad. So, an animal or a plant can be a food source, but the dairy is still not necessary for us, technically it's for the baby.
Not necessary doesn't mean "not meant for," as absolutely no one food is necessary.
The thing is that dairy in particular isn't natural for humans apart from the theological or philosophical aspect which I am not concerned with on this topic. Cow milk is created as a hormonal response to feed the calf and no more. It wasn't made for any of us or another animal. A cow or any other mammal won't provide milk if not first impregnated. Yet, not looking from an ethical or philosophical view, dairy is not bad for us unless we consume it excessively (as with guess what? everything!). Is it natural for humans to consume something made specifically for cows or kittens or goats? Absolutely not. Is it ethical? You be the judge. Is it bad? Nope. Science approves that last opinion.
Which foods do you consider to be "made for us"?5 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »Jesus Christ why are you so nasty to each other? We can't compare fruit with a mars bar anyway. The fruit has fiber, vitamins and minerals which help keeping the appetite stabilized and give proper nutrition! And dairy? You're a freaking human, not a cow so it's okay not to have it in your diet even when you're NOT intolerant or allergic to it. Now for gluten, if you're not sick I don't see any reason why to avoid it but if it works for one then it's good, you don't have to play the "i know better than you because I am SO much better" card.
I eat all of the things she says she avoids but still... who am I to criticize and belittle one? Jeez there's no need to be mean. Maybe you need to up your calories a bit.
PS: Some responses have been nice and/or honest, so my text doesn't go to all who responded.
The irony of this post.
I got to admit that the comment about upping the calories was a little mean itself. I apologize, I was acting out of emotion It just hit me that some people are playing the experts in order to "reduce" the person who began the topic.
Yet, you are reducing people by comparing them to baby cows if they consume dairy...Go figure.
Oh come on! I also eat dairy. I am neither vegan nor vegetarian. What I wanted to say is that it's okay if we don't have it by choice and not because of an intolerance or allergy. It's a fact that it is food not meant for us but for the cow though, no matter how you take it.
How is it not meant for us...humans have been consuming dairy and/or goats milk/cheese for thousands of years. Comment is void of rationality.
The modern human is existing roughly for 200,000 years. We first started eating dairy 10,000-7,500 years ago. Research has it that it started in Northern and Central Europe and for a good reason. Sun exposure was limited, therefore these folks got their vitamin D from milk since they couldn't pop a supplement (though I doubt they knew what they were doing and were probably hungry and short of food). Is it natural to consume breast milk from another species other than your own? No it isn't. However, it was practical for the ancient folks since they could take more food for them that way.
Lots of things we did and are doing aren't natural and they're not bad for us. We don't need to deny ourselves for that though. It's good to acknowledge the truth as it is. The cow milk was specifically created to feed a calf. The fact that you eat and drink it is still okay but it's definitely not something created for you. The cow, even when farmed for milk, will give you milk ONLY if she gets impregnated first. It's only rational 0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Jesus Christ why are you so nasty to each other? We can't compare fruit with a mars bar anyway. The fruit has fiber, vitamins and minerals which help keeping the appetite stabilized and give proper nutrition! And dairy? You're a freaking human, not a cow so it's okay not to have it in your diet even when you're NOT intolerant or allergic to it. Now for gluten, if you're not sick I don't see any reason why to avoid it but if it works for one then it's good, you don't have to play the "i know better than you because I am SO much better" card.
I eat all of the things she says she avoids but still... who am I to criticize and belittle one? Jeez there's no need to be mean. Maybe you need to up your calories a bit.
PS: Some responses have been nice and/or honest, so my text doesn't go to all who responded.
The irony of this post.
I got to admit that the comment about upping the calories was a little mean itself. I apologize, I was acting out of emotion It just hit me that some people are playing the experts in order to "reduce" the person who began the topic.
Yet, you are reducing people by comparing them to baby cows if they consume dairy...Go figure.
It's a fact that it is food not meant for us but for the cow though, no matter how you take it.
Unless "fact" has an alternate meaning to you, no, it's not a fact at all.
I guess you don't understand what "meant" means. I hope you know that a cow to produce milk must first give birth. Pretty much like any other land mammal. The fact that we consume e.g a liter of it means that a baby cow isn't. So, yeah no matter what you say it's a food originally meant for a baby cow and not a human or a dog or a sheep etc.
That doesn't mean it's the only thing it's meant for, and it's not "meant" to be human food. Under the same exact rationale you could say that no animals or plants are "meant" to be human food. Like I said, clams about "meant" aren't fact claims, they are philosophical ones that we impose.
Hmm... it's just that milk is produced for the sole purpose of feeding the baby, no matter the mammal species.
It's not produced with a purpose. It's a process that happens without intent unless you add it on (which is theological or philosophical). Similarly, the baby cow is not born with the intent to give him to us to eat, so under the same logic any meat eating would be unnatural. The natural purpose of plants growing isn't to be food, but to reproduce, under the same logic.
(I made basically this same point in my other reply, so feel free to consolidate if you want to continue the discussion.)As humans we take advantage of it for good or for bad. So, an animal or a plant can be a food source, but the dairy is still not necessary for us, technically it's for the baby.
Not necessary doesn't mean "not meant for," as absolutely no one food is necessary.
The thing is that dairy in particular isn't natural for humans apart from the theological or philosophical aspect which I am not concerned with on this topic.
Again, cow milk is no more or less natural for humans to eat than anything else humans eat (besides human breast milk, I guess).Cow milk is created as a hormonal response to feed the calf and no more. It wasn't made for any of us or another animal.
Cows also were not created for us to eat (unless you think they were for some theological reason), nor was corn. Take contemporary corn or bananas, for that matter -- we messed around with them a lot to make them as they currently are -- but really the point stands for anything we eat. It was not created/made for us, we saw it, realized we could eat it, and we did. If you see that as natural, us seeing we could consume cow's milk is the same (and why other animals will consume it when they can, or the milk of other species besides their own). We probably decided to raise animals for milk in part because of getting it as a side effect of hunting in the first place, but who knows.Is it natural for humans to consume something made specifically for cows or kittens or goats? Absolutely not.
No food we eat is MADE for us to consume (well, except for the so-called unnatural stuff we manufacture). It exists and we decide to consume it. So under that argument nothing is natural.
Since neither of us even think whether or not it's natural matters, I am also confused by what point you are trying to make.2 -
LowCarb4Me2016 wrote: »OP, I believe there is a group here for those who eat Paleo. Not telling you to leave or anything, but you might find such a group to be more supportive.
Well, so far I actually attempted to make suggestions for OP, and one hardly needs to be paleo to do that. If you have suggestions, feel free. Like I said before, meals without gluten, dairy, or added sugar are hardly vanishingly rare in most people's diets.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Jesus Christ why are you so nasty to each other? We can't compare fruit with a mars bar anyway. The fruit has fiber, vitamins and minerals which help keeping the appetite stabilized and give proper nutrition! And dairy? You're a freaking human, not a cow so it's okay not to have it in your diet even when you're NOT intolerant or allergic to it. Now for gluten, if you're not sick I don't see any reason why to avoid it but if it works for one then it's good, you don't have to play the "i know better than you because I am SO much better" card.
I eat all of the things she says she avoids but still... who am I to criticize and belittle one? Jeez there's no need to be mean. Maybe you need to up your calories a bit.
PS: Some responses have been nice and/or honest, so my text doesn't go to all who responded.
The irony of this post.
I got to admit that the comment about upping the calories was a little mean itself. I apologize, I was acting out of emotion It just hit me that some people are playing the experts in order to "reduce" the person who began the topic.
Yet, you are reducing people by comparing them to baby cows if they consume dairy...Go figure.
It's a fact that it is food not meant for us but for the cow though, no matter how you take it.
Unless "fact" has an alternate meaning to you, no, it's not a fact at all.
I guess you don't understand what "meant" means. I hope you know that a cow to produce milk must first give birth. Pretty much like any other land mammal. The fact that we consume e.g a liter of it means that a baby cow isn't. So, yeah no matter what you say it's a food originally meant for a baby cow and not a human or a dog or a sheep etc.
That doesn't mean it's the only thing it's meant for, and it's not "meant" to be human food. Under the same exact rationale you could say that no animals or plants are "meant" to be human food. Like I said, clams about "meant" aren't fact claims, they are philosophical ones that we impose.
Hmm... it's just that milk is produced for the sole purpose of feeding the baby, no matter the mammal species.
It's not produced with a purpose. It's a process that happens without intent unless you add it on (which is theological or philosophical). Similarly, the baby cow is not born with the intent to give him to us to eat, so under the same logic any meat eating would be unnatural. The natural purpose of plants growing isn't to be food, but to reproduce, under the same logic.
(I made basically this same point in my other reply, so feel free to consolidate if you want to continue the discussion.)As humans we take advantage of it for good or for bad. So, an animal or a plant can be a food source, but the dairy is still not necessary for us, technically it's for the baby.
Not necessary doesn't mean "not meant for," as absolutely no one food is necessary.
The thing is that dairy in particular isn't natural for humans apart from the theological or philosophical aspect which I am not concerned with on this topic. Cow milk is created as a hormonal response to feed the calf and no more. It wasn't made for any of us or another animal. A cow or any other mammal won't provide milk if not first impregnated. Yet, not looking from an ethical or philosophical view, dairy is not bad for us unless we consume it excessively (as with guess what? everything!). Is it natural for humans to consume something made specifically for cows or kittens or goats? Absolutely not. Is it ethical? You be the judge. Is it bad? Nope. Science approves that last opinion.
This has got to be one of the most ridiculous thread arguments I've read in a long time.6 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »Jesus Christ why are you so nasty to each other? We can't compare fruit with a mars bar anyway. The fruit has fiber, vitamins and minerals which help keeping the appetite stabilized and give proper nutrition! And dairy? You're a freaking human, not a cow so it's okay not to have it in your diet even when you're NOT intolerant or allergic to it. Now for gluten, if you're not sick I don't see any reason why to avoid it but if it works for one then it's good, you don't have to play the "i know better than you because I am SO much better" card.
I eat all of the things she says she avoids but still... who am I to criticize and belittle one? Jeez there's no need to be mean. Maybe you need to up your calories a bit.
PS: Some responses have been nice and/or honest, so my text doesn't go to all who responded.
The irony of this post.
I got to admit that the comment about upping the calories was a little mean itself. I apologize, I was acting out of emotion It just hit me that some people are playing the experts in order to "reduce" the person who began the topic.
Yet, you are reducing people by comparing them to baby cows if they consume dairy...Go figure.
Oh come on! I also eat dairy. I am neither vegan nor vegetarian. What I wanted to say is that it's okay if we don't have it by choice and not because of an intolerance or allergy. It's a fact that it is food not meant for us but for the cow though, no matter how you take it.
How is it not meant for us...humans have been consuming dairy and/or goats milk/cheese for thousands of years. Comment is void of rationality.
The modern human is existing roughly for 200,000 years. We first started eating dairy 10,000-7,500 years ago. Research has it that it started in Northern and Central Europe and for a good reason. Sun exposure was limited, therefore these folks got their vitamin D from milk since they couldn't pop a supplement (though I doubt they knew what they were doing and were probably hungry and short of food). Is it natural to consume breast milk from another species other than your own? No it isn't. However, it was practical for the ancient folks since they could take more food for them that way.
Lots of things we did and are doing aren't natural and they're not bad for us. We don't need to deny ourselves for that though. It's good to acknowledge the truth as it is. The cow milk was specifically created to feed a calf. The fact that you eat and drink it is still okay but it's definitely not something created for you. The cow, even when farmed for milk, will give you milk ONLY if she gets impregnated first. It's only rational
Given that we do lots of things that aren't natural (and eat lots of foods that aren't natural), what do you think is the significance of this argument? What purpose is served by repeating that consuming dairy isn't natural?1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Jesus Christ why are you so nasty to each other? We can't compare fruit with a mars bar anyway. The fruit has fiber, vitamins and minerals which help keeping the appetite stabilized and give proper nutrition! And dairy? You're a freaking human, not a cow so it's okay not to have it in your diet even when you're NOT intolerant or allergic to it. Now for gluten, if you're not sick I don't see any reason why to avoid it but if it works for one then it's good, you don't have to play the "i know better than you because I am SO much better" card.
I eat all of the things she says she avoids but still... who am I to criticize and belittle one? Jeez there's no need to be mean. Maybe you need to up your calories a bit.
PS: Some responses have been nice and/or honest, so my text doesn't go to all who responded.
The irony of this post.
I got to admit that the comment about upping the calories was a little mean itself. I apologize, I was acting out of emotion It just hit me that some people are playing the experts in order to "reduce" the person who began the topic.
Yet, you are reducing people by comparing them to baby cows if they consume dairy...Go figure.
It's a fact that it is food not meant for us but for the cow though, no matter how you take it.
Unless "fact" has an alternate meaning to you, no, it's not a fact at all.
I guess you don't understand what "meant" means. I hope you know that a cow to produce milk must first give birth. Pretty much like any other land mammal. The fact that we consume e.g a liter of it means that a baby cow isn't. So, yeah no matter what you say it's a food originally meant for a baby cow and not a human or a dog or a sheep etc.
That doesn't mean it's the only thing it's meant for, and it's not "meant" to be human food. Under the same exact rationale you could say that no animals or plants are "meant" to be human food. Like I said, clams about "meant" aren't fact claims, they are philosophical ones that we impose.
Hmm... it's just that milk is produced for the sole purpose of feeding the baby, no matter the mammal species.
It's not produced with a purpose. It's a process that happens without intent unless you add it on (which is theological or philosophical). Similarly, the baby cow is not born with the intent to give him to us to eat, so under the same logic any meat eating would be unnatural. The natural purpose of plants growing isn't to be food, but to reproduce, under the same logic.
(I made basically this same point in my other reply, so feel free to consolidate if you want to continue the discussion.)As humans we take advantage of it for good or for bad. So, an animal or a plant can be a food source, but the dairy is still not necessary for us, technically it's for the baby.
Not necessary doesn't mean "not meant for," as absolutely no one food is necessary.
The thing is that dairy in particular isn't natural for humans apart from the theological or philosophical aspect which I am not concerned with on this topic. Cow milk is created as a hormonal response to feed the calf and no more. It wasn't made for any of us or another animal. A cow or any other mammal won't provide milk if not first impregnated. Yet, not looking from an ethical or philosophical view, dairy is not bad for us unless we consume it excessively (as with guess what? everything!). Is it natural for humans to consume something made specifically for cows or kittens or goats? Absolutely not. Is it ethical? You be the judge. Is it bad? Nope. Science approves that last opinion.
Can you explain the difference between drinking cows milk being "unnatural" but eating cow meat being "natural"?
Yes of course. I will copy my previous answer in which I explain why milk in particular isn't natural and I will explain myself for the second part of the question.
1: The thing is that dairy in particular isn't natural for humans apart from the theological or philosophical aspect which I am not concerned with on this topic. Cow milk is created as a hormonal response to feed the calf and no more. It wasn't made for any of us or another animal. A cow or any other mammal won't provide milk if not first impregnated. Yet, not looking from an ethical or philosophical view, dairy is not bad for us unless we consume it excessively (as with guess what? everything!). Is it natural for humans to consume something made specifically for cows or kittens or goats? Absolutely not. Is it ethical? You be the judge. Is it bad? Nope. Science approves that last opinion.
2: Eating any meat is indeed natural. It provides us with nutrition and we've been actually eating that since we started on our species. The same could be said about all fruits and vegetables alike (unless poisonous :P ) One could argue that even cooking isn't natural but we've been doing for so long, it's imprinted on us. Dairy, however, has been part of our diet only recently compared to our history.
Just because it's not bad for our health -and taste buds to be fair- it doesn't mean that it's natural to drink another animal's milk.
It has become a part of our recent evolution and there is not denial about this. We, humans, have progressed a lot and in certain areas I think it's wonderful. For example I would not be able to have this debate with you or any other person on this site.
To close this topic for good, I don't say: hey it's not natural so one is the best to avoid it and salmon is meant for bears only so dont you dare touch it! I say that dairy consumption is not something we did naturally, it's not a natural behaviour. Does it mean it's bad? No, it's actually giving you vitamins, it's a tasty protein source and has calcium as well. The only way it could be WRONG for one is if they have ethical concerns and I don't.
EDIT: ethical and religious concerns of course.
End note: The topic that I started was in defense of the person who said she doesn't include dairy in her diet. It's a food group that if you avoid, you won't need to take supplements since it is not naturally required for us to thrive. You don't have to be lactose intolerant or allergic to dairy.
As for added sugar, it's best to not over consume it. Grains with gluten... it sounds not comfortable, especially when you don't have an intolerance or celiac but whatever fits one best. I can only say kudos to this person and I am glad she is feeling good and has no cravings for junk foods.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Jesus Christ why are you so nasty to each other? We can't compare fruit with a mars bar anyway. The fruit has fiber, vitamins and minerals which help keeping the appetite stabilized and give proper nutrition! And dairy? You're a freaking human, not a cow so it's okay not to have it in your diet even when you're NOT intolerant or allergic to it. Now for gluten, if you're not sick I don't see any reason why to avoid it but if it works for one then it's good, you don't have to play the "i know better than you because I am SO much better" card.
I eat all of the things she says she avoids but still... who am I to criticize and belittle one? Jeez there's no need to be mean. Maybe you need to up your calories a bit.
PS: Some responses have been nice and/or honest, so my text doesn't go to all who responded.
The irony of this post.
I got to admit that the comment about upping the calories was a little mean itself. I apologize, I was acting out of emotion It just hit me that some people are playing the experts in order to "reduce" the person who began the topic.
Yet, you are reducing people by comparing them to baby cows if they consume dairy...Go figure.
It's a fact that it is food not meant for us but for the cow though, no matter how you take it.
Unless "fact" has an alternate meaning to you, no, it's not a fact at all.
I guess you don't understand what "meant" means. I hope you know that a cow to produce milk must first give birth. Pretty much like any other land mammal. The fact that we consume e.g a liter of it means that a baby cow isn't. So, yeah no matter what you say it's a food originally meant for a baby cow and not a human or a dog or a sheep etc.
That doesn't mean it's the only thing it's meant for, and it's not "meant" to be human food. Under the same exact rationale you could say that no animals or plants are "meant" to be human food. Like I said, clams about "meant" aren't fact claims, they are philosophical ones that we impose.
Hmm... it's just that milk is produced for the sole purpose of feeding the baby, no matter the mammal species.
It's not produced with a purpose. It's a process that happens without intent unless you add it on (which is theological or philosophical). Similarly, the baby cow is not born with the intent to give him to us to eat, so under the same logic any meat eating would be unnatural. The natural purpose of plants growing isn't to be food, but to reproduce, under the same logic.
(I made basically this same point in my other reply, so feel free to consolidate if you want to continue the discussion.)As humans we take advantage of it for good or for bad. So, an animal or a plant can be a food source, but the dairy is still not necessary for us, technically it's for the baby.
Not necessary doesn't mean "not meant for," as absolutely no one food is necessary.
The thing is that dairy in particular isn't natural for humans apart from the theological or philosophical aspect which I am not concerned with on this topic. Cow milk is created as a hormonal response to feed the calf and no more. It wasn't made for any of us or another animal. A cow or any other mammal won't provide milk if not first impregnated. Yet, not looking from an ethical or philosophical view, dairy is not bad for us unless we consume it excessively (as with guess what? everything!). Is it natural for humans to consume something made specifically for cows or kittens or goats? Absolutely not. Is it ethical? You be the judge. Is it bad? Nope. Science approves that last opinion.
Can you explain the difference between drinking cows milk being "unnatural" but eating cow meat being "natural"?
Yes of course. I will copy my previous answer in which I explain why milk in particular isn't natural and I will explain myself for the second part of the question.
1: The thing is that dairy in particular isn't natural for humans apart from the theological or philosophical aspect which I am not concerned with on this topic. Cow milk is created as a hormonal response to feed the calf and no more. It wasn't made for any of us or another animal. A cow or any other mammal won't provide milk if not first impregnated. Yet, not looking from an ethical or philosophical view, dairy is not bad for us unless we consume it excessively (as with guess what? everything!). Is it natural for humans to consume something made specifically for cows or kittens or goats? Absolutely not. Is it ethical? You be the judge. Is it bad? Nope. Science approves that last opinion.
2: Eating any meat is indeed natural. It provides us with nutrition and we've been actually eating that since we started on our species. The same could be said about all fruits and vegetables alike (unless poisonous :P ) One could argue that even cooking isn't natural but we've been doing for so long, it's imprinted on us. Dairy, however, has been part of our diet only recently compared to our history.
Just because it's not bad for our health -and taste buds to be fair- it doesn't mean that it's natural to drink another animal's milk.
It has become a part of our recent evolution and there is not denial about this. We, humans, have progressed a lot and in certain areas I think it's wonderful. For example I would not be able to have this debate with you or any other person on this site.
To close this topic for good, I don't say: hey it's not natural so one is the best to avoid it and salmon is meant for bears only so dont you dare touch it! I say that dairy consumption is not something we did naturally, it's not a natural behaviour. Does it mean it's bad? No, it's actually giving you vitamins, it's a tasty protein source and has calcium as well. The only way it could be WRONG for one is if they have ethical concerns and I don't.
The flesh of other creatures is no more "made" for us to consume than any milk they might produce. To declare one a natural food for humans and the other not makes no sense to me.
The body of a cow or fish or bird doesn't exist to be food. It has independent purposes.
I'm not putting this forward as an argument against eating meat, I'm just questioning the usefulness of distinguishing between "natural" and "unnatural" food and not understanding the argument that the flesh of an animal is a natural food while their secretions are somehow an unnatural food.7 -
Jesus Christ why are you so nasty to each other? We can't compare fruit with a mars bar anyway. The fruit has fiber, vitamins and minerals which help keeping the appetite stabilized and give proper nutrition! And dairy? You're a freaking human, not a cow so it's okay not to have it in your diet even when you're NOT intolerant or allergic to it. Now for gluten, if you're not sick I don't see any reason why to avoid it but if it works for one then it's good, you don't have to play the "i know better than you because I am SO much better" card.
I eat all of the things she says she avoids but still... who am I to criticize and belittle one? Jeez there's no need to be mean. Maybe you need to up your calories a bit.
PS: Some responses have been nice and/or honest, so my text doesn't go to all who responded.
The irony of this post.
I got to admit that the comment about upping the calories was a little mean itself. I apologize, I was acting out of emotion It just hit me that some people are playing the experts in order to "reduce" the person who began the topic.
Yet, you are reducing people by comparing them to baby cows if they consume dairy...Go figure.
It's a fact that it is food not meant for us but for the cow though, no matter how you take it.
Unless "fact" has an alternate meaning to you, no, it's not a fact at all.
I guess you don't understand what "meant" means. I hope you know that a cow to produce milk must first give birth. Pretty much like any other land mammal. The fact that we consume e.g a liter of it means that a baby cow isn't. So, yeah no matter what you say it's a food originally meant for a baby cow and not a human or a dog or a sheep etc.
Veal and milk it is then.2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Jesus Christ why are you so nasty to each other? We can't compare fruit with a mars bar anyway. The fruit has fiber, vitamins and minerals which help keeping the appetite stabilized and give proper nutrition! And dairy? You're a freaking human, not a cow so it's okay not to have it in your diet even when you're NOT intolerant or allergic to it. Now for gluten, if you're not sick I don't see any reason why to avoid it but if it works for one then it's good, you don't have to play the "i know better than you because I am SO much better" card.
I eat all of the things she says she avoids but still... who am I to criticize and belittle one? Jeez there's no need to be mean. Maybe you need to up your calories a bit.
PS: Some responses have been nice and/or honest, so my text doesn't go to all who responded.
The irony of this post.
I got to admit that the comment about upping the calories was a little mean itself. I apologize, I was acting out of emotion It just hit me that some people are playing the experts in order to "reduce" the person who began the topic.
Yet, you are reducing people by comparing them to baby cows if they consume dairy...Go figure.
It's a fact that it is food not meant for us but for the cow though, no matter how you take it.
Unless "fact" has an alternate meaning to you, no, it's not a fact at all.
I guess you don't understand what "meant" means. I hope you know that a cow to produce milk must first give birth. Pretty much like any other land mammal. The fact that we consume e.g a liter of it means that a baby cow isn't. So, yeah no matter what you say it's a food originally meant for a baby cow and not a human or a dog or a sheep etc.
That doesn't mean it's the only thing it's meant for, and it's not "meant" to be human food. Under the same exact rationale you could say that no animals or plants are "meant" to be human food. Like I said, clams about "meant" aren't fact claims, they are philosophical ones that we impose.
Hmm... it's just that milk is produced for the sole purpose of feeding the baby, no matter the mammal species.
It's not produced with a purpose. It's a process that happens without intent unless you add it on (which is theological or philosophical). Similarly, the baby cow is not born with the intent to give him to us to eat, so under the same logic any meat eating would be unnatural. The natural purpose of plants growing isn't to be food, but to reproduce, under the same logic.
(I made basically this same point in my other reply, so feel free to consolidate if you want to continue the discussion.)As humans we take advantage of it for good or for bad. So, an animal or a plant can be a food source, but the dairy is still not necessary for us, technically it's for the baby.
Not necessary doesn't mean "not meant for," as absolutely no one food is necessary.
The thing is that dairy in particular isn't natural for humans apart from the theological or philosophical aspect which I am not concerned with on this topic. Cow milk is created as a hormonal response to feed the calf and no more. It wasn't made for any of us or another animal. A cow or any other mammal won't provide milk if not first impregnated. Yet, not looking from an ethical or philosophical view, dairy is not bad for us unless we consume it excessively (as with guess what? everything!). Is it natural for humans to consume something made specifically for cows or kittens or goats? Absolutely not. Is it ethical? You be the judge. Is it bad? Nope. Science approves that last opinion.
Can you explain the difference between drinking cows milk being "unnatural" but eating cow meat being "natural"?
Yes of course. I will copy my previous answer in which I explain why milk in particular isn't natural and I will explain myself for the second part of the question.
1: The thing is that dairy in particular isn't natural for humans apart from the theological or philosophical aspect which I am not concerned with on this topic. Cow milk is created as a hormonal response to feed the calf and no more. It wasn't made for any of us or another animal.
Again, neither was anything else we eat (except for those things we created for that explicit purpose, like cheese). Claiming that anything has a teleological purpose is something you impose, it is an interpretation, it does not exist in nature.2: Eating any meat is indeed natural.
Why? It was not created for us to eat. Animals do not have babies in order to give us food. (They don't really have any specific purpose beyond a biological one, but same with mammals making milk.)It provides us with nutrition
So does dairy.and we've been actually eating that since we started on our species.
Arguments about when you go back to in what we ate when we started shall now begin. If our primate ancestor was a vegetarian, why is that not more natural? If we didn't cook our food, why is that natural? If we didn't farm (and we didn't), why is that natural? If we didn't raise animals for food (and we didn't), why is that natural?
More significantly, that we've been doing it forever (well, from our perspective), why is that natural? We've been consuming dairy since we've been consuming meat, probably, as we would have sometimes killed lactating mammals and would have used everything, but even apart from that we've been relying on dairy and raising animals for it since our cultures were unrecognizably different than now -- how is that unnatural.
For that matter, we've been doing it so long that many of us (the vast majority in some areas) are genetically adapted to it, have a gene that allows for it. So if I'm genetically suited to it, how is it unnatural in some kind of "factual" (and not just philosophical/theological) way?The same could be said about all fruits and vegetables alike (unless poisonous :P )
Even if they wouldn't exist without our creation? There are plants we've eaten less long than we've been consuming milk, and of course farming is unnatural under that definition.I say that dairy consumption is not something we did naturally, it's not a natural behaviour.
How do you define what is or is not natural behavior for humans? It seems incredibly "natural" (historically) for us to eat whatever is available that we can and to think of ways to make food more available. The traditional Irish diet (among others, this is just one I have a link for readily available) revolved around dairy for many, many centuries before anyone in Europe was consuming potatoes: http://www.bonappetit.com/trends/article/what-the-irish-ate-before-potatoes. So why is dairy unnatural and potatoes (which the French peasants thought were unnatural and were suspicious of in the 18th c) not?
Natural doesn't mean anything outside of some kind of philosophical or theological argument. (Indeed, what the state of nature was, what's natural or not, is long debated in those contexts. I don't think a scientist would use it to describe human behavior or customs.)2 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »Jesus Christ why are you so nasty to each other? We can't compare fruit with a mars bar anyway. The fruit has fiber, vitamins and minerals which help keeping the appetite stabilized and give proper nutrition! And dairy? You're a freaking human, not a cow so it's okay not to have it in your diet even when you're NOT intolerant or allergic to it. Now for gluten, if you're not sick I don't see any reason why to avoid it but if it works for one then it's good, you don't have to play the "i know better than you because I am SO much better" card.
I eat all of the things she says she avoids but still... who am I to criticize and belittle one? Jeez there's no need to be mean. Maybe you need to up your calories a bit.
PS: Some responses have been nice and/or honest, so my text doesn't go to all who responded.
The irony of this post.
I got to admit that the comment about upping the calories was a little mean itself. I apologize, I was acting out of emotion It just hit me that some people are playing the experts in order to "reduce" the person who began the topic.
Yet, you are reducing people by comparing them to baby cows if they consume dairy...Go figure.
Oh come on! I also eat dairy. I am neither vegan nor vegetarian. What I wanted to say is that it's okay if we don't have it by choice and not because of an intolerance or allergy. It's a fact that it is food not meant for us but for the cow though, no matter how you take it.
How is it not meant for us...humans have been consuming dairy and/or goats milk/cheese for thousands of years. Comment is void of rationality.
The modern human is existing roughly for 200,000 years. We first started eating dairy 10,000-7,500 years ago. Research has it that it started in Northern and Central Europe and for a good reason. Sun exposure was limited, therefore these folks got their vitamin D from milk since they couldn't pop a supplement (though I doubt they knew what they were doing and were probably hungry and short of food). Is it natural to consume breast milk from another species other than your own? No it isn't. However, it was practical for the ancient folks since they could take more food for them that way.
Lots of things we did and are doing aren't natural and they're not bad for us. We don't need to deny ourselves for that though. It's good to acknowledge the truth as it is. The cow milk was specifically created to feed a calf. The fact that you eat and drink it is still okay but it's definitely not something created for you. The cow, even when farmed for milk, will give you milk ONLY if she gets impregnated first. It's only rational
Nothing is created specifically for me...
Do you know how the food chain works?5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Jesus Christ why are you so nasty to each other? We can't compare fruit with a mars bar anyway. The fruit has fiber, vitamins and minerals which help keeping the appetite stabilized and give proper nutrition! And dairy? You're a freaking human, not a cow so it's okay not to have it in your diet even when you're NOT intolerant or allergic to it. Now for gluten, if you're not sick I don't see any reason why to avoid it but if it works for one then it's good, you don't have to play the "i know better than you because I am SO much better" card.
I eat all of the things she says she avoids but still... who am I to criticize and belittle one? Jeez there's no need to be mean. Maybe you need to up your calories a bit.
PS: Some responses have been nice and/or honest, so my text doesn't go to all who responded.
The irony of this post.
I got to admit that the comment about upping the calories was a little mean itself. I apologize, I was acting out of emotion It just hit me that some people are playing the experts in order to "reduce" the person who began the topic.
Yet, you are reducing people by comparing them to baby cows if they consume dairy...Go figure.
It's a fact that it is food not meant for us but for the cow though, no matter how you take it.
Unless "fact" has an alternate meaning to you, no, it's not a fact at all.
I guess you don't understand what "meant" means. I hope you know that a cow to produce milk must first give birth. Pretty much like any other land mammal. The fact that we consume e.g a liter of it means that a baby cow isn't. So, yeah no matter what you say it's a food originally meant for a baby cow and not a human or a dog or a sheep etc.
That doesn't mean it's the only thing it's meant for, and it's not "meant" to be human food. Under the same exact rationale you could say that no animals or plants are "meant" to be human food. Like I said, clams about "meant" aren't fact claims, they are philosophical ones that we impose.
Hmm... it's just that milk is produced for the sole purpose of feeding the baby, no matter the mammal species.
It's not produced with a purpose. It's a process that happens without intent unless you add it on (which is theological or philosophical). Similarly, the baby cow is not born with the intent to give him to us to eat, so under the same logic any meat eating would be unnatural. The natural purpose of plants growing isn't to be food, but to reproduce, under the same logic.
(I made basically this same point in my other reply, so feel free to consolidate if you want to continue the discussion.)As humans we take advantage of it for good or for bad. So, an animal or a plant can be a food source, but the dairy is still not necessary for us, technically it's for the baby.
Not necessary doesn't mean "not meant for," as absolutely no one food is necessary.
The thing is that dairy in particular isn't natural for humans apart from the theological or philosophical aspect which I am not concerned with on this topic. Cow milk is created as a hormonal response to feed the calf and no more. It wasn't made for any of us or another animal. A cow or any other mammal won't provide milk if not first impregnated. Yet, not looking from an ethical or philosophical view, dairy is not bad for us unless we consume it excessively (as with guess what? everything!). Is it natural for humans to consume something made specifically for cows or kittens or goats? Absolutely not. Is it ethical? You be the judge. Is it bad? Nope. Science approves that last opinion.
Can you explain the difference between drinking cows milk being "unnatural" but eating cow meat being "natural"?
Yes of course. I will copy my previous answer in which I explain why milk in particular isn't natural and I will explain myself for the second part of the question.
1: The thing is that dairy in particular isn't natural for humans apart from the theological or philosophical aspect which I am not concerned with on this topic. Cow milk is created as a hormonal response to feed the calf and no more. It wasn't made for any of us or another animal. A cow or any other mammal won't provide milk if not first impregnated. Yet, not looking from an ethical or philosophical view, dairy is not bad for us unless we consume it excessively (as with guess what? everything!). Is it natural for humans to consume something made specifically for cows or kittens or goats? Absolutely not. Is it ethical? You be the judge. Is it bad? Nope. Science approves that last opinion.
2: Eating any meat is indeed natural. It provides us with nutrition and we've been actually eating that since we started on our species. The same could be said about all fruits and vegetables alike (unless poisonous :P ) One could argue that even cooking isn't natural but we've been doing for so long, it's imprinted on us. Dairy, however, has been part of our diet only recently compared to our history.
Just because it's not bad for our health -and taste buds to be fair- it doesn't mean that it's natural to drink another animal's milk.
It has become a part of our recent evolution and there is not denial about this. We, humans, have progressed a lot and in certain areas I think it's wonderful. For example I would not be able to have this debate with you or any other person on this site.
To close this topic for good, I don't say: hey it's not natural so one is the best to avoid it and salmon is meant for bears only so dont you dare touch it! I say that dairy consumption is not something we did naturally, it's not a natural behaviour. Does it mean it's bad? No, it's actually giving you vitamins, it's a tasty protein source and has calcium as well. The only way it could be WRONG for one is if they have ethical concerns and I don't.
The flesh of other creatures is no more "made" for us to consume than any milk they might produce. To declare one a natural food for humans and the other not makes no sense to me.
The body of a cow or fish or bird doesn't exist to be food. It has independent purposes.
I'm not putting this forward as an argument against eating meat, I'm just questioning the usefulness of distinguishing between "natural" and "unnatural" food and not understanding the argument that the flesh of an animal is a natural food while their secretions are somehow an unnatural food.
I happen to quite like your logic! However, I am just stating that we have only consumed dairy until recently and it is not a requirement for us to thrive. Milk is not unnatural itself. It is not natural for us to drink it though unless it's from a human and we are the baby. Just to be clear, when I say not natural, I don't mean that it's dangerous e.g. sleeping under water (can't find a better example). We have made a habit out of a lot of things that are unnatural to us for the sake of intelligence, learning, convenience, nutrition etc. Some of them are bad for us and some are not. I'm not here to argue that you shouldn't drink milk. I am here to tell you that you can thrive without it and without the need of supplementation due to its absence. I am not against dairy, I consume it daily myself.
1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions