Gluten free, sugar free, dairy free... who is with me?
Options
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
I don't eat Paleo so rather than suggest meals or ideas that I have no clue about, or poke fun or start a debate in the Q&A section, I suggested she direct her questions towards those who might have a clue.
1 -
MaryYoungmark wrote: »Dairy is not required for good health! Cows milk is meant to nourish their babies. That's it! But instead us humans decided to go feed cows hormones to keep them producing dairy... so human adults who do not need to grow can consume the milk that is meant for a calf.
Cows milk is not the only way we can get calcium.
Does it taste good? Yep! Do we need it? No!
Nobody said dairy was required for good health...
It's also not bad for your health...3 -
MaryYoungmark wrote: »Dairy is not required for good health! Cows milk is meant to nourish their babies. That's it! But instead us humans decided to go feed cows hormones to keep them producing dairy... so human adults who do not need to grow can consume the milk that is meant for a calf.
Cows milk is not the only way we can get calcium.
Does it taste good? Yep! Do we need it? No!
I guess not all our deeds are good. We are in a point where we exploit animals and not just taking advantage of it. From an ethical perspective we are being overly cruel to the animals. It's good that living without dairy won't give you a deficiency since you can find your protein, vitamin D and calcium in different sources.1 -
WinoGelato wrote: »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.
Which foods do you consider to be "made for us"?
Oreos.WinoGelato wrote: »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.
Which foods do you consider to be "made for us"?
Oreos.
I consider bourbon to also be made for me.8 -
lemurcat12 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.
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.)
Farming is not natural indeed, never said it was and can't be. Now what sparkled in my mind is the context of if it's our logic that makes things like our inventions and creations "unnatural" or it is actually human nature. And all of this came out from an argument on freaking dairy!
I personally perceive Nature as harsh for not being fair or unfair. In that sense I can see the logic with consuming dairy as nothing within the concept of natural or unnatural because it just simply...is. It's a food that we can use to benefit our survival or nutrition.
My opinion is based on that just because it is not poisonous to us and it was created only to feed that baby mammal it doesn't make it natural. But I suppose my view is more philosophical than coming from my human nature. A biologist would say that this cow or this woman is creating milk due to pregnancy hormones. My intuition then tells me that it's not natural to consume an animal's milk but it's not going to be bad for me.
Yet, nothing can be unnatural or natural for us to consume and use. It's a matter of being ethical, philosophical about the topic or I guess religious.
I'm a very stubborn person but with your approach- not being rude, ironic and actually being keen to explain your points with a good attitude, I must tell you, you've definitely given me food for thought.
given that opinion you should not eat anything because nothing in nature is specifically created for humans to consume...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. 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.
A life without cheese?? *Gasp* the thought is overwhelmingly depressing!1 -
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.
A life without cheese?? *Gasp* the thought is overwhelmingly depressing!
I second this opinion. Don't take my cheese, yogurt, or milk. I can go through 40 oz of Greek yogurt and a gallon of milk per week just by myself. I won't even go in to the cheese..0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »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.
Which foods do you consider to be "made for us"?
Oreos.WinoGelato wrote: »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.
Which foods do you consider to be "made for us"?
Oreos.
I consider bourbon to also be made for me.
I'm gonna go there: Pizza. Tell me pizza wasn't made for me.4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »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.
Which foods do you consider to be "made for us"?
Oreos.WinoGelato wrote: »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.
Which foods do you consider to be "made for us"?
Oreos.
I consider bourbon to also be made for me.
I'm gonna go there: Pizza. Tell me pizza wasn't made for me.
Pretty sure if you call Domino's, Papa Johns, or Pizza Hut - not only will they make a pizza for you, they will deliver it to your door. How is that not "meant to be!"?11 -
lemurcat12 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.
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.)
Farming is not natural indeed, never said it was and can't be. Now what sparkled in my mind is the context of if it's our logic that makes things like our inventions and creations "unnatural" or it is actually human nature. And all of this came out from an argument on freaking dairy!
I personally perceive Nature as harsh for not being fair or unfair. In that sense I can see the logic with consuming dairy as nothing within the concept of natural or unnatural because it just simply...is. It's a food that we can use to benefit our survival or nutrition.
My opinion is based on that just because it is not poisonous to us and it was created only to feed that baby mammal it doesn't make it natural. But I suppose my view is more philosophical than coming from my human nature. A biologist would say that this cow or this woman is creating milk due to pregnancy hormones. My intuition then tells me that it's not natural to consume an animal's milk but it's not going to be bad for me.
Yet, nothing can be unnatural or natural for us to consume and use. It's a matter of being ethical, philosophical about the topic or I guess religious.
I'm a very stubborn person but with your approach- not being rude, ironic and actually being keen to explain your points with a good attitude, I must tell you, you've definitely given me food for thought.
given that opinion you should not eat anything because nothing in nature is specifically created for humans to consume...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.
what specific things are made for us in nature?
Are you suggesting that you bottle breast milk and drink that instead of dairy?
Yes that's exactly what i do. I go to new mothers in the near neighborhoods, abduct them, take their milk, let them free cuz i ain't a horrible person and run. I also wear a mask so I am not recognized. By doing that I shout "cow milk is for cows so I shall take yours Young Motharrr".
because we all know that cows and humans are the same when it comes to rights and what not..wow
You asked me if I bottled human breast milk and I responded to you in the most sincere way.
You are only trying to prove your superficial smartness. My sarcastic response to your ironic question becomes a statement in which I value cows equally or more than humans. You throw irony, you get the same back darling. Grow up and don't make a statement about me or anyone else based on a freaking ironic response.
I get that we disagree, I got to understand where you all come from and compromise my opinion,see with your eyes but human stupidity and desire to be on top on a debate ONLINE is just amazing!
Yes I love milking the moms in my area and drink their milk because YES I value cows more than humans. You want this? Take it...wow1 -
I don't understand why you guys are tearing her down for posting about what works for her. Everybody is different, and maybe this method doesn't work for you, but it works for her and many others! I personally am doing the Whole30 right now to give my body a reset. So that means no added sugar or sugar substitutes, no grains, no legumes, no dairy, and probably other things I can't think of right now (because it's day one and I'm fuzzy from my sugar hangover). I can still eat plenty of meat, fruits, veggies, nuts that aren't peanuts, etc. There is PLENTY to still eat! Do I think I'll "never eat grains again?" No, but my body needs a break from the processed crap I've been eating, so I'm doing what works for me. It doesn't mean you have to do it, nor does it mean that you should, because everyone is different (like I said). Just support each other in trying to be healthier instead of picking each other apart, that's all
6 -
janejellyroll wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »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.
Which foods do you consider to be "made for us"?
Oreos.WinoGelato wrote: »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.
Which foods do you consider to be "made for us"?
Oreos.
I consider bourbon to also be made for me.
I'm gonna go there: Pizza. Tell me pizza wasn't made for me.
Nope...cheese...dairy...not made for you...0 -
I read at the Natural History Museum that farming and drinking milk is one of the main contributing factors to the success of the human race. Just sayin'.4
-
WinoGelato wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »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.
Which foods do you consider to be "made for us"?
Oreos.WinoGelato wrote: »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.
Which foods do you consider to be "made for us"?
Oreos.
I consider bourbon to also be made for me.
I'm gonna go there: Pizza. Tell me pizza wasn't made for me.
Pretty sure if you call Domino's, Papa Johns, or Pizza Hut - not only will they make a pizza for you, they will deliver it to your door. How is that not "meant to be!"?
If I'm not meant to eat it, why are so many people willing to bring it right to me? Riddle me that, mother nature!4 -
OP, congrats!
If your new eating habits make you feel better than your former eating habits, then you have found something that works for you.4 -
I don't understand why you guys are tearing her down for posting about what works for her. Everybody is different, and maybe this method doesn't work for you, but it works for her and many others! I personally am doing the Whole30 right now to give my body a reset. So that means no added sugar or sugar substitutes, no grains, no legumes, no dairy, and probably other things I can't think of right now (because it's day one and I'm fuzzy from my sugar hangover). I can still eat plenty of meat, fruits, veggies, nuts that aren't peanuts, etc. There is PLENTY to still eat! Do I think I'll "never eat grains again?" No, but my body needs a break from the processed crap I've been eating, so I'm doing what works for me. It doesn't mean you have to do it, nor does it mean that you should, because everyone is different (like I said). Just support each other in trying to be healthier instead of picking each other apart, that's all
I don't understand how you can reset a body.
How did your body tell you that it wanted a break from processed foods?6 -
I think there are some people on this thread who don't really understand what the word "omnivore" means.....................3
-
WinoGelato wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »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.
Which foods do you consider to be "made for us"?
Oreos.WinoGelato wrote: »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.
Which foods do you consider to be "made for us"?
Oreos.
I consider bourbon to also be made for me.
I'm gonna go there: Pizza. Tell me pizza wasn't made for me.
Pretty sure if you call Domino's, Papa Johns, or Pizza Hut - not only will they make a pizza for you, they will deliver it to your door. How is that not "meant to be!"?
It's science! haha1 -
I don't understand why you guys are tearing her down for posting about what works for her. Everybody is different, and maybe this method doesn't work for you, but it works for her and many others! I personally am doing the Whole30 right now to give my body a reset. So that means no added sugar or sugar substitutes, no grains, no legumes, no dairy, and probably other things I can't think of right now (because it's day one and I'm fuzzy from my sugar hangover). I can still eat plenty of meat, fruits, veggies, nuts that aren't peanuts, etc. There is PLENTY to still eat! Do I think I'll "never eat grains again?" No, but my body needs a break from the processed crap I've been eating, so I'm doing what works for me. It doesn't mean you have to do it, nor does it mean that you should, because everyone is different (like I said). Just support each other in trying to be healthier instead of picking each other apart, that's all
I'm glad you are enjoying Whole30 and elimination diets certainly have their place in certain circumstances but resetting your body isn't a thing.4 -
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 913 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions