Almond Milk vs. Cow's Milk
Options
Replies
-
Cow milk... I drink nonfat has 90 calories and 9 grams of protein.
And people have been drinking it for generations and lived healthy, long, and productive lives.
All that other noise some of you are spewing sounds ridiculous considering the history of milk and people who consume it pretty much says it all. lol
My family being one of them. As I'm sure many of your family members and ancestors! lol
No need to put it down. If you prefer almond milk or whatever then that is personal preference. Its not better for you then cow's milk and HISTORY has taught me that. Nothing you can really say to me to convince me otherwise.0 -
What makes osteoporosis worse is just relying on calcium intake ONLY and not doing anything else physically to put more stress on the bones make them more dense. That includes physical activity with some impact.
^^^^ this
just like how eating tons of protein won't make you grow muscles if you don't work out............ eating tons of calcium won't make your bones denser if you're not putting weight on your bones0 -
Thanks for the info - I didn't know there was less calcium - that's kind of a big deal for me because I have osteoporosis in my family.
BTW, that's so awesome that you have lost 185 pounds!! Way to go!!
stop drinking cows milk then, it''ll make the osteoporosis worse
almond milk has the same amount of calcium, protein and other vitamins and minerals as cows milk
but its a lot less gross
doesn't support the veal industry
doesn't deplete calcium from your bones
etc etc etc
i could go on for hours.
check out
http://www.notmilk.com0 -
I'm bumping this in response to kennie's post, above
Dairy does NOT cause osteoporosis!!!
Also, check out the Masai people of Africa.... they eat dairy all their lives and they live long, healthy lives and have good bone health into old age
And the Mongolian people of Asia... also eat dairy and are extremely fit, strong, healthy and have good bone health into old age....
but those people are active all their lives, not sedentary....re prevention of osteoporosis, the major factors are hormones and weight bearing exercise. Adequate calcium intake is also very important, but bone mineralisation may fail to occur even with adequate calcium intake if these other factors are not present
1. weight bearing exercise - bone is a dynamic tissue just like muscle is, i.e. it's a case of use it or lose it, and if you want more of it you have to load it with enough weight. So while strength training is usually recommended for building and maintaining muscle mass, it's also very important for building and maintaining bone density. All weight bearing exercise has an effect, even walking, but the more weight you put on your bones, the more they'll adapt by laying down more minerals, just like how muscles are stimulated by walking but heavy lifting can make them much stronger than walking can
2. hormones - some of the human sex hormones have a role in bone mineralisation. Too low levels of these, which can occur as a result of insufficient food intake or too low levels of body fat, can cause minerals to be lost from the skeleton. Women are particular at risk from this, especially after the menopause, due to the natural decline of sex hormones. However men are at risk too if they undereat to the point that their sperm count is affected (this too is the result of too low levels of sex hormones). In women, if menstruation stops because of insufficient food intake, then there's a high likelihood that minerals are being lost from the bones as well. In men, it's harder to tell that this is happening and he may not notice that his sperm count has dropped because his semen looks the same. However for both males and females there are other signs of chronic undereating that indicate that sex hormone levels are too low and there's a risk that bone minerals are being lost.
So the take home message from that is for bone health, 1. eat enough food generally, 2. do exercise that puts weight on your bones and 3. eat enough calcium (from dairy or greens, it doesn't matter, but if you are intolerant or allergic to dairy then you need to eat greens to get calcium.... dairy eating people should still eat greens for iron and folic acid and stuff though!!) ... and there's an extra take-home message for women.... strength training even after the menopause goes a long way to limiting the loss of bone minerals after your menstrual cycle stops. Traditional societies that don't have high rates of osteoporosis in elderly women, usually you'll find that people are very active and even old women walk long distances and/or do lifting and carrying and stay active into old age (ditto old men)........ no need to be scared of dairy if you can digest it fine, but avoid being sedentary.
Note: cessation of menstruation due to pregnancy and breastfeeding does not cause female sex hormone levels to drop, just that the hormones are different to support pregnancy and breastfeeding. That said, you need more calcium, especially when breastfeeding, as you need calcium for the baby too. During breastfeeding, your baby is laying down minerals in his or her own bones, you need a LOT of calcium while breastfeeding, if you're not eating enough it'll go from your own bones into your milk for your baby. So eat plenty of calcium while breastfeeding.0 -
Thanks for the info - I didn't know there was less calcium - that's kind of a big deal for me because I have osteoporosis in my family.
BTW, that's so awesome that you have lost 185 pounds!! Way to go!!
stop drinking cows milk then, it''ll make the osteoporosis worse
almond milk has the same amount of calcium, protein and other vitamins and minerals as cows milk
but its a lot less gross
doesn't support the veal industry
doesn't deplete calcium from your bones
etc etc etc
i could go on for hours.
check out
http://www.notmilk.com
Yes. Issue websites with obvious bias are always better proof than peer reviewed studies. :laugh:0 -
I like protein so I drink cow's milk for the most part. I also eat a ton of yogurt and a little cheese here and there. My protein powders are generally casein or whey sourced, both of which come from cow's milk.
Sweetened vanilla almond milk tastes good in cereal or drinking straight, but you can't use it as a replacement in cooking. Vanilla almond milk in a mushroom soup or a cold cucumber soup is downright disgusting. Soy milk tastes like milk that has had a clean cotton sock soaking in it. It isn't nasty, but that subtle aftertaste is a turn-off. Besides, if you purchase the wrong brands of either, you get none of the vitamin fortification. You have to carefully watch labels.
Who cares if there is pus in milk. Pus is natural, it's in human breast milk, and we feed that to our babies. Besides cow's milk is pasteurized.0 -
Heating something up, and then cooling it rapidly does not remove pus, it kills living organisms.1. No pus in cow's milk, thanks to a guy callled Louis Pasteur, unless you are buying raw milk right out of the bulk tank.
2. The fat content is your choice, hence the labels reading 1%, 2%, skim, etc.
3. The calcium in both dairy milk and in almond milk (and in soy and other 'milks' as well) is added in after the fact.
4. Casein is only a problem if you are casein-intolerant, which is extremely rare.
I drink soy milk most of the time, because I'm lactose intolerant. If you're not, there's really no reason to avoid dairy.
Removing the fat from milk just drives up the casein as the total percentage of calories.
Calcium is best absorbed from green vegetables.
Casein promotes cancer growth when eaten in large quantities.
Most adults are lactose intolerant.0 -
If organizations like PETA would stick with the moral issues that they care about, rather than manipulating data and fabricating theories to back up their case, their credibility wouldn't be as shot as it is. It's a shame really, because the dishonesty isn't necessary, as the moral debate is a legitimate and interesting one.
"organizations like PETA"? Most educated and reasonable people concerned about animal welfare (or rights) and environmental health ALSO place PETA on the fringe, and take issue with the fact that their extremism is indeed detrimental to the issues overall.
However, let's be realistic. Humans have an amazing capacity to develop in positive ways in nearly every aspect you could think of. Most of us do not do so, for many reasons. We have an infinite capacity to feel compassion and empathy, but again, many/most of us do not do so even for others in our own species, let alone another. To go the moral route in debate is very often a dead end - which is why the veg*n community is trying to go the route of science - be it human health or environmental health. Unfortunately, groups like PETA screw even that up.
Anyway, no comment on the almond milk vs cow's milk other than to say - we're not calves. The U.S. in particular seems to have developed a bizarre disgust of human breastfeeding for human infants. Imagine the disgust most people would feel if an adult human drank human breastmilk regularly. So if we wouldn't drink human breastmilk, designed for human infants, why on earth would we want to drink the milk of another species? Just bizarre. Add in the non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in the industry, and all that is passed on through consumption of the milk, and most people take no issue with consuming it. Again, just bizarre.0 -
I'm bumping this in response to kennie's post, above
Dairy does NOT cause osteoporosis!!!
Also, check out the Masai people of Africa.... they eat dairy all their lives and they live long, healthy lives and have good bone health into old age
And the Mongolian people of Asia... also eat dairy and are extremely fit, strong, healthy and have good bone health into old age....
but those people are active all their lives, not sedentary....re prevention of osteoporosis, the major factors are hormones and weight bearing exercise. Adequate calcium intake is also very important, but bone mineralisation may fail to occur even with adequate calcium intake if these other factors are not present
1. weight bearing exercise - bone is a dynamic tissue just like muscle is, i.e. it's a case of use it or lose it, and if you want more of it you have to load it with enough weight. So while strength training is usually recommended for building and maintaining muscle mass, it's also very important for building and maintaining bone density. All weight bearing exercise has an effect, even walking, but the more weight you put on your bones, the more they'll adapt by laying down more minerals, just like how muscles are stimulated by walking but heavy lifting can make them much stronger than walking can
2. hormones - some of the human sex hormones have a role in bone mineralisation. Too low levels of these, which can occur as a result of insufficient food intake or too low levels of body fat, can cause minerals to be lost from the skeleton. Women are particular at risk from this, especially after the menopause, due to the natural decline of sex hormones. However men are at risk too if they undereat to the point that their sperm count is affected (this too is the result of too low levels of sex hormones). In women, if menstruation stops because of insufficient food intake, then there's a high likelihood that minerals are being lost from the bones as well. In men, it's harder to tell that this is happening and he may not notice that his sperm count has dropped because his semen looks the same. However for both males and females there are other signs of chronic undereating that indicate that sex hormone levels are too low and there's a risk that bone minerals are being lost.
So the take home message from that is for bone health, 1. eat enough food generally, 2. do exercise that puts weight on your bones and 3. eat enough calcium (from dairy or greens, it doesn't matter, but if you are intolerant or allergic to dairy then you need to eat greens to get calcium.... dairy eating people should still eat greens for iron and folic acid and stuff though!!) ... and there's an extra take-home message for women.... strength training even after the menopause goes a long way to limiting the loss of bone minerals after your menstrual cycle stops. Traditional societies that don't have high rates of osteoporosis in elderly women, usually you'll find that people are very active and even old women walk long distances and/or do lifting and carrying and stay active into old age (ditto old men)........ no need to be scared of dairy if you can digest it fine, but avoid being sedentary.
Note: cessation of menstruation due to pregnancy and breastfeeding does not cause female sex hormone levels to drop, just that the hormones are different to support pregnancy and breastfeeding. That said, you need more calcium, especially when breastfeeding, as you need calcium for the baby too. During breastfeeding, your baby is laying down minerals in his or her own bones, you need a LOT of calcium while breastfeeding, if you're not eating enough it'll go from your own bones into your milk for your baby. So eat plenty of calcium while breastfeeding.
I've always wondered what yak's milk tastes like. I bet it is good.0 -
The label on the cow's milk vs. the label on the almond milk disagrees with your assertion that they contain equal amounts of protein.Thanks for the info - I didn't know there was less calcium - that's kind of a big deal for me because I have osteoporosis in my family.
BTW, that's so awesome that you have lost 185 pounds!! Way to go!!
stop drinking cows milk then, it''ll make the osteoporosis worse
almond milk has the same amount of calcium, protein and other vitamins and minerals as cows milk
but its a lot less gross
doesn't support the veal industry
doesn't deplete calcium from your bones
etc etc etc
i could go on for hours.
check out
http://www.notmilk.com0 -
If organizations like PETA would stick with the moral issues that they care about, rather than manipulating data and fabricating theories to back up their case, their credibility wouldn't be as shot as it is. It's a shame really, because the dishonesty isn't necessary, as the moral debate is a legitimate and interesting one.
"organizations like PETA"? Most educated and reasonable people concerned about animal welfare (or rights) and environmental health ALSO place PETA on the fringe, and take issue with the fact that their extremism is indeed detrimental to the issues overall.
However, let's be realistic. Humans have an amazing capacity to develop in positive ways in nearly every aspect you could think of. Most of us do not do so, for many reasons. We have an infinite capacity to feel compassion and empathy, but again, many/most of us do not do so even for others in our own species, let alone another. To go the moral route in debate is very often a dead end - which is why the veg*n community is trying to go the route of science - be it human health or environmental health. Unfortunately, groups like PETA screw even that up.
Anyway, no comment on the almond milk vs cow's milk other than to say - we're not calves. The U.S. in particular seems to have developed a bizarre disgust of human breastfeeding for human infants. Imagine the disgust most people would feel if an adult human drank human breastmilk regularly. So if we wouldn't drink human breastmilk, designed for human infants, why on earth would we want to drink the milk of another species? Just bizarre. Add in the non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in the industry, and all that is passed on through consumption of the milk, and most people take no issue with consuming it. Again, just bizarre.
disgust for breastfeeding is unnatural and not justification for hating on the traditional diets of many people around the world. Humans have not only evolved the ability to digest other animals' milk, they've evolved it at least twice. Europeans evolved this trait, and the Masai people of Africa also evolved it separately. The common factor is thousands of years of dairy farming/herding, i.e. it was the way of life for these people for long enough for the populations to evolve the ability to digest lactose. And just out of interest, would you feel as comfortable telling a traditional Masai herdsman/woman or a traditional Mongolian herdsman/woman that consuming dairy is disgusting and unnatural, or is this something you reserve for industrialised westerners?
also, anyone who's disgusted by seeing someone breastfeed their baby or small child needs counselling. Using this as a line of argument to say drinking other animals milk is even more disgusting is just silly. Breastfeeding is natural. Drinking other animals milk is a traditional way of life for some people around the world, and it too is natural. People who are not descended from those populations tend to have trouble digesting dairy, and those people should avoid dairy. But that doesn't make dairy consumption unnatural or disgusting.0 -
Thanks for the info - I didn't know there was less calcium - that's kind of a big deal for me because I have osteoporosis in my family.
BTW, that's so awesome that you have lost 185 pounds!! Way to go!!
stop drinking cows milk then, it''ll make the osteoporosis worse
almond milk has the same amount of calcium, protein and other vitamins and minerals as cows milk
but its a lot less gross
doesn't support the veal industry
doesn't deplete calcium from your bones
etc etc etc
i could go on for hours.
check out
http://www.notmilk.com
Yes. Issue websites with obvious bias are always better proof than peer reviewed studies. :laugh:
lol @ notmilk.com! And also lol at thinking grounded up almonds and water have more protein than milk. I will say that I eat about an oz of almonds everyday and still do not get my 9 grams of protein I get in a cup of milk.0 -
But that's EXACTLY why they try to characterize any rational argument as being a "PETA" message. They want impressionable people to think that anyone who doesn't mindlessly consume harmful, yet profitable crap is on the fringe, and not to be listened to."organizations like PETA"? Most educated and reasonable people concerned about animal welfare (or rights) and environmental health ALSO place PETA on the fringe, and take issue with the fact that their extremism is indeed detrimental to the issues overall.
It's not just food industry trolls that use this message. If you look around this world, you will see a lot of truths being characterized as fringe ideas.0 -
If organizations like PETA would stick with the moral issues that they care about, rather than manipulating data and fabricating theories to back up their case, their credibility wouldn't be as shot as it is. It's a shame really, because the dishonesty isn't necessary, as the moral debate is a legitimate and interesting one.
"organizations like PETA"? Most educated and reasonable people concerned about animal welfare (or rights) and environmental health ALSO place PETA on the fringe, and take issue with the fact that their extremism is indeed detrimental to the issues overall.
However, let's be realistic. Humans have an amazing capacity to develop in positive ways in nearly every aspect you could think of. Most of us do not do so, for many reasons. We have an infinite capacity to feel compassion and empathy, but again, many/most of us do not do so even for others in our own species, let alone another. To go the moral route in debate is very often a dead end - which is why the veg*n community is trying to go the route of science - be it human health or environmental health. Unfortunately, groups like PETA screw even that up.
Anyway, no comment on the almond milk vs cow's milk other than to say - we're not calves. The U.S. in particular seems to have developed a bizarre disgust of human breastfeeding for human infants. Imagine the disgust most people would feel if an adult human drank human breastmilk regularly. So if we wouldn't drink human breastmilk, designed for human infants, why on earth would we want to drink the milk of another species? Just bizarre. Add in the non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in the industry, and all that is passed on through consumption of the milk, and most people take no issue with consuming it. Again, just bizarre.
Trying to use science to justify a moral position isn't science.
And the idea that there are antibiotics in milk is false. That's a big industry no-no and one of the few things commercial milk is tested against.0 -
But that's EXACTLY why they try to characterize any rational argument as being a "PETA" message. They want impressionable people to think that anyone who doesn't mindlessly consume harmful, yet profitable crap is on the fringe, and not to be listened to."organizations like PETA"? Most educated and reasonable people concerned about animal welfare (or rights) and environmental health ALSO place PETA on the fringe, and take issue with the fact that their extremism is indeed detrimental to the issues overall.
It's not just food industry trolls that use this message. If you look around this world, you will see a lot of truths being characterized as fringe ideas.
I know lots of vegetarians vegans that I wouldn't classify as "fringe"
Veganism is an ethical choice, and one I respect (even though I don't agree with it myself) it's the pseudoscience I have issues with, and also it harms the causes of organisations like PETA when they constantly spew out pseudoscience, and it harms people when they make choices that they think will result in better health when actually they result in a lot of unnecessary restriction for no benefit at all, and in some cases result in worse health.0 -
Natural/organic/vegan food substitutes are HUGELY profitable and usually based on misinformation, fearmonging, and scare tactics..you know typical PETA stuffBut that's EXACTLY why they try to characterize any rational argument as being a "PETA" message. They want impressionable people to think that anyone who doesn't mindlessly consume harmful, yet profitable crap is on the fringe, and not to be listened to.
Unless allergic or intolerant there is nothing harmful about animal milk. On the other hand getting your nutrition from non-whole food sources can be detrimental. Almond milk is about as natural and whole as Pepsi.0 -
You don't make rational arguments, only emotional ones, that's the problem. You're thinking is irrational.
But that's EXACTLY why they try to characterize any rational argument as being a "PETA" message. They want impressionable people to think that anyone who doesn't mindlessly consume harmful, yet profitable crap is on the fringe, and not to be listened to."organizations like PETA"? Most educated and reasonable people concerned about animal welfare (or rights) and environmental health ALSO place PETA on the fringe, and take issue with the fact that their extremism is indeed detrimental to the issues overall.
It's not just food industry trolls that use this message. If you look around this world, you will see a lot of truths being characterized as fringe ideas.0 -
If organizations like PETA would stick with the moral issues that they care about, rather than manipulating data and fabricating theories to back up their case, their credibility wouldn't be as shot as it is. It's a shame really, because the dishonesty isn't necessary, as the moral debate is a legitimate and interesting one.
"organizations like PETA"? Most educated and reasonable people concerned about animal welfare (or rights) and environmental health ALSO place PETA on the fringe, and take issue with the fact that their extremism is indeed detrimental to the issues overall.
However, let's be realistic. Humans have an amazing capacity to develop in positive ways in nearly every aspect you could think of. Most of us do not do so, for many reasons. We have an infinite capacity to feel compassion and empathy, but again, many/most of us do not do so even for others in our own species, let alone another. To go the moral route in debate is very often a dead end - which is why the veg*n community is trying to go the route of science - be it human health or environmental health. Unfortunately, groups like PETA screw even that up.
Anyway, no comment on the almond milk vs cow's milk other than to say - we're not calves. The U.S. in particular seems to have developed a bizarre disgust of human breastfeeding for human infants. Imagine the disgust most people would feel if an adult human drank human breastmilk regularly. So if we wouldn't drink human breastmilk, designed for human infants, why on earth would we want to drink the milk of another species? Just bizarre. Add in the non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in the industry, and all that is passed on through consumption of the milk, and most people take no issue with consuming it. Again, just bizarre.
disgust for breastfeeding is unnatural and not justification for hating on the traditional diets of many people around the world. Humans have not only evolved the ability to digest other animals' milk, they've evolved it at least twice. Europeans evolved this trait, and the Masai people of Africa also evolved it separately. The common factor is thousands of years of dairy farming/herding, i.e. it was the way of life for these people for long enough for the populations to evolve the ability to digest lactose. And just out of interest, would you feel as comfortable telling a traditional Masai herdsman/woman or a traditional Mongolian herdsman/woman that consuming dairy is disgusting and unnatural, or is this something you reserve for industrialised westerners?
also, anyone who's disgusted by seeing someone breastfeed their baby or small child needs counselling. Using this as a line of argument to say drinking other animals milk is even more disgusting is just silly. Breastfeeding is natural. Drinking other animals milk is a traditional way of life for some people around the world, and it too is natural. People who are not descended from those populations tend to have trouble digesting dairy, and those people should avoid dairy. But that doesn't make dairy consumption unnatural or disgusting.
Umm, I didn't say it was disgusting, you did. I specifically placed the context in the modern U.S. (or did you miss that part?) and said it's BIZARRE given that context. So don't start putting words in my mouth.
Those Masai and Mongolian herdspeople are going to actually give a damn about their animals because their survival is linked to them. That alone makes a huge difference in the argument. They are also not raising their animals in a system that pollutes their environment while also adding non-therapeutic antibiotics to their animals. Again, makes a difference in the argument. So don't start trying to go on about westerners vs tribes people, when that wasn't in my comment.
ETA: I agree that anyone disgusted by breastfeeding needs counseling, but it's a strange thing that has happened in, as I said, the U.S.0 -
Although I have a slight preference for dairy, I use almond milk exclusively these days because:
1) I can save 40-60 calories. More accurately I can reallocate those calories to something I enjoy more than even milk.
2) A half gallon container of almond milk will get completely used whereas the same volume of dairy will inevitably have some discarded due to spoilage. Where I shop, there is little to no difference in price between the two so almond is easily the better economic value.
3) Similarly non-refregerated almond milk keeps in my cabinet longer for my reserve supply0 -
Yak's milk hmmm
I've always wondered what yak's milk tastes like. I bet it is good.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 400 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 988 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions