Almond Milk vs. Cow's Milk

graham713

Calcium is also needed for our heart, muscles, and nerves to function properly and for blood to clot. The body needs vitamin D to absorb calcium. Without enough vitamin D, one can’t form enough of the hormone calcitriol. This in turn leads to insufficient calcium absorption from the diet. In this situation, the body must take calcium from its stores in the skeleton, which weakens existing bone and prevents the formation of strong, new bone.
You can get vitamin D in three ways: through the skin, from the diet, and from supplements. Since cows milk is fortified with vitamin D it is a good choice to ensure adequate calcium absorption.

veganbaum

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.

So, trying to do scientific studies to show that the way industrialized animal farming isn't good for human health or for environmental health isn't a good thing?

Wait.

What?

A person choosing not to eat factory farmed animals because of the effects of factory farming on the environment, and choosing so because they believe they have a moral obligation to do what they can to lessen their impact on the earth, can't use science to explain their choice?

So, you don't want a moral argument, and you don't want a scientific argument. Okay.

You've already come to your conclusion, and are trying to justify it by "research". An approach that considers industrial animal farming and evaluates both the positive and negative aspects is more believable than an agenda driven approach.

You've already lost people like me when, from your high horse, you think I don't want a moral or scientific stand - it's just that the science you are trying to provide isn't very good. A certain amount of industrial scaling is more efficient and less damaging than none, when addressing the need to provide quality agricultural goods at a reasonable price in world markets. What that level is, I'm not quite sure.

Using science to explain a moral choice is just noise. If one is so certain of the moral position, that starting presumption should be sufficient. Clearly, since you need to abuse science to do so means that the moral arguments are either insufficient or poorly communicated.

You actually weaken your case.

I haven't abused any science. I haven't posted anything about milk being dangerous for humans or whatever. Saying human milk is specifically designed for humans and other species' milk for other species isn't abusing science. It's just a fact. I also stated that some humans can consume other animals' milk.

Again, if people want to lump ALL veg*ns into one PETA-like group, and claim all our tactics are the same, well, can't get past that.

You brought up "science" as an argument to support a moral position.
As to you "fact" - it isn't a fact but opinion. Milk, of human source or animal, isn't necessarily "designed" (by whom?) for a specific species. What are you basing this "fact" on, how would you like to show that milk isn't a proper product for human consumption, if not by science, but that fact remains that milk can be consumed not my some humans but by most humans. Lactose intolerance in infants is extremely rare (and also results in intolerance of human milk), as we age, it's onset varies - it's incorrect to assume that because we sometimes stop developing lactase it isn't a good nutrient resource for infants.

Personally, I'm not lumping any veg*ns into one group, nor do I think most people here do.

I do see a lot of stupid people arguing that there is pus in milk. Sigh.

The whole "not meant for human consumption" is a non-sequitur because it is consumed by humans on a massive scale since pre-historic times.

1. I didn't bring up science to support any moral position. I was asking why a person might think you can't use science to support your position, even if ultimately your position is based on a moral stance. (You can't use science to justify your moral position? How does that even make sense? Of course you can, as per my environmental decision example.)

2. I still never said milk isn't meant for human consumption, I said milk is specifically designed for babies of each species. Those babies are the ones who will get the most benefit from it. Can others consume it? Yes, as I said, people do. And prehistoric vs current consumption of milk probably varied wildly - so "on a massive scale" may not be at all accurate. But neither of us can prove that.

EvgeniZyntx

I have researched a lot - how can you say neither is true?

Post up your research.

EvgeniZyntx

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.

So, trying to do scientific studies to show that the way industrialized animal farming isn't good for human health or for environmental health isn't a good thing?

Wait.

What?

A person choosing not to eat factory farmed animals because of the effects of factory farming on the environment, and choosing so because they believe they have a moral obligation to do what they can to lessen their impact on the earth, can't use science to explain their choice?

So, you don't want a moral argument, and you don't want a scientific argument. Okay.

You've already come to your conclusion, and are trying to justify it by "research". An approach that considers industrial animal farming and evaluates both the positive and negative aspects is more believable than an agenda driven approach.

You've already lost people like me when, from your high horse, you think I don't want a moral or scientific stand - it's just that the science you are trying to provide isn't very good. A certain amount of industrial scaling is more efficient and less damaging than none, when addressing the need to provide quality agricultural goods at a reasonable price in world markets. What that level is, I'm not quite sure.

Using science to explain a moral choice is just noise. If one is so certain of the moral position, that starting presumption should be sufficient. Clearly, since you need to abuse science to do so means that the moral arguments are either insufficient or poorly communicated.

You actually weaken your case.

I haven't abused any science. I haven't posted anything about milk being dangerous for humans or whatever. Saying human milk is specifically designed for humans and other species' milk for other species isn't abusing science. It's just a fact. I also stated that some humans can consume other animals' milk.

Again, if people want to lump ALL veg*ns into one PETA-like group, and claim all our tactics are the same, well, can't get past that.

You brought up "science" as an argument to support a moral position.
As to you "fact" - it isn't a fact but opinion. Milk, of human source or animal, isn't necessarily "designed" (by whom?) for a specific species. What are you basing this "fact" on, how would you like to show that milk isn't a proper product for human consumption, if not by science, but that fact remains that milk can be consumed not my some humans but by most humans. Lactose intolerance in infants is extremely rare (and also results in intolerance of human milk), as we age, it's onset varies - it's incorrect to assume that because we sometimes stop developing lactase it isn't a good nutrient resource for infants.

Personally, I'm not lumping any veg*ns into one group, nor do I think most people here do.

I do see a lot of stupid people arguing that there is pus in milk. Sigh.

The whole "not meant for human consumption" is a non-sequitur because it is consumed by humans on a massive scale since pre-historic times.

1. I didn't bring up science to support any moral position. I was asking why a person might think you can't use science to support your position, even if ultimately your position is based on a moral stance. (You can't use science to justify your moral position? How does that even make sense? Of course you can, as per my environmental decision example.)

2. I still never said milk isn't meant for human consumption, I said milk is specifically designed for babies of each species. Those babies are the ones who will get the most benefit from it. Can others consume it? Yes, as I said, people do. And prehistoric vs current consumption of milk probably varied wildly - so "on a massive scale" may not be at all accurate. But neither of us can prove that.

http://www.pnas.org/content/100/4/1524.short
Direct chemical evidence for widespread dairying in prehistoric Britain

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/08/080806-prehistoric-dairy.html

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/41492363?uid=3738016&uid=2460338175&uid=2460337935&uid=2&uid=4&uid=83&uid=63&sid=21103721262527

There are actually quite a few references of prehistoric widespread use of milk and milk products.

Losing_Sarah

I prefer the taste of almond milk, and it is nutritionally similar. You can make up for whatever it doesn't have with food or supplements.

nainai0585

On the issue of taste alone: Myself and my family found almond/soy/etc milk to be absolutely disgusting. We hated it. I greatly prefer our 2% cow's milk and will continue to drink it on a regular basis, daily basis.

tigersword

Cow's milk was not meant for human consumption, it was meant for baby calves. Almond milk is RGBH free of growth hormones. It has more calcium in it than milk does too.

And almonds are baby almond trees, also not "meant" for human consumption. What a silly, pointless argument.

EvgeniZyntx

I prefer the taste of almond milk, and it is nutritionally similar. You can make up for whatever it doesn't have with food or supplements.

It is not nutritionally similar.
Milk has 300% more protein, just as a start.

jmv7117

Moral high ground?

Wow! Rather judgmental?

graham713

I was just wondering if there's a benefit if you change from drinking cow's milk to almond milk.....?

Have you got your answer yet? Lol

amaysngrace

Cow's milk was not meant for human consumption, it was meant for baby calves. Almond milk is RGBH free of growth hormones. It has more calcium in it than milk does too.

And almonds are baby almond trees, also not "meant" for human consumption. What a silly, pointless argument.

Your analogy was pointless. I didn't get it. This whole discussion is silly and pointless. If one wants to drink almond milk, drink it. If one wants to drink cow's milk, drink it. Sitting here wasting loads of energy on arguing does nothing for me. Genetics is what determines how long a person lives, not cow's milk, almond milk or cocoon milk, who cares. :smokin:

laurenatanner

I've switched to almond milk for the following reasons:
1. Fewer calories than cow's milk.
2. The vanilla, unsweetened one is DELICIOUS in smoothies.
3. Fewer carbs! (But make sure you buy the unsweetened one.)
4. Last but not least, after months of experimentation with my diet I've discovered that dairy makes me bloated! So maybe this reason should be vanity (and less gas).

I hope this helps you make your decision. Best of luck!

Slacker16

Detailed nutritional data for whole milk:
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/dairy-and-egg-products/69/2

Detailed nutritional data for almond milk:
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/custom/1981172/2

Salient differences:
- dairy milk has more phosphorous and selenium
- almond milk has more calcium, vitamin E and B12
- different macro-nutrient profiles

Honestly, the differences are so slight that I'd go by taste and cost, personally.

MaiLinna

The main reason most people have switched to almond or soy milk is because they have a lactose intolerance or sensitivity. I, for example, get nauseated after finishing my cereal or drinking more than 1/4 cup of milk at a time. I go easy on the cheese. Never been a big yogurt fan but I just started eating greek yogurt and most of the time I do get a bit nauseated by the time I finish.

Lofteren

Almond milk - There is pus in cows milk and growth hormone

That's kinda scary. Are you talking raw cow's milk when you mention pus? or what we buy from the store shelf?

I do have concerns about the growth hormone.

The growth hormone is one of the benefits of drinking milk. Milk contains multiple types of growth factors, most notably IGF-1, that cause a higher rate of protein synthesis than consuming protein alone. If you are eating to build muscle mass this is a big plus. I have experienced no problems consuming milk (I drink 16-32oz a day and have since I was a child).

SpencersHeart

Almond milk - There is pus in cows milk and growth hormone

That's kinda scary. Are you talking raw cow's milk when you mention pus? or what we buy from the store shelf?

I do have concerns about the growth hormone.

The growth hormone is one of the benefits of drinking milk. Milk contains multiple types of growth factors, most notably IGF-1, that cause a higher rate of protein synthesis than consuming protein alone. If you are eating to build muscle mass this is a big plus. I have experienced no problems consuming milk (I drink 16-32oz a day and have since I was a child).

Thank you.

SpencersHeart

Almond milk - There is pus in cows milk and growth hormone

That's kinda scary. Are you talking raw cow's milk when you mention pus? or what we buy from the store shelf?

I do have concerns about the growth hormone.

Neither is true.

Thank you...I'll check it out.

NewLIFEstyle4ME

I don't like cow's milk (nor do I like soy milk) and almond milk, rice milk, sunflower seed milk, coconut milk, hemp milk, Flax milks that I've been drinking gets so boring and so watery:ohwell: ...I stopped drinking them all--then I found this milk: :drinker:

Califia Almondmilks :drinker:

These milks are so rich and creamy...not "watery" like the other nut and rice milks that I've tried over the years. My all time favorite is: Toasted Coconut Pure Coconut Almondmilk blend and my next favorite is Vanilla Protein Pure Almondmilk--it has 8 grams of protein and is creamy and delicious. My favorite (the coconut almond blend) isn't that high in protein, but again...it's creamy and uber delicious and I use it in my protein shakes--so I get extra protein using it!
Here's the stats on the vanilla protein:

Califia Vanilla Protein Almondmilk
Nutrition Facts
Serving size 10.5 fl oz
Servings per container 1
Amount per serving % Daily value *
Calories 130
Calories from Fat 40
Total Fat 4.5g 7%
Saturated Fat 0g 0%
Trans Fat 0g
Cholesterol 0mg 0%
Sodium 220mg 9%
Total Carbohydrate 16g 5%
Dietary Fiber 1g 4%
Sugars 13g
Protein 8g
Vitamin A 10%
Calcium 45%
Vitamin D 25%
Riboflavin 25%
Zinc 10%
Vitamin C 0%
Iron 2%
Vitamin E 50%
Vitamin B12 50%
Copper 6%

Here's the stats on my favorite Coconut Almondmilk blend:
Nutrition Facts
Serving size 8 fl oz
Servings per container 6
Amount per serving % Daily value *
Calories 40
Calories from Fat 30
Total Fat 3.5g 5%
Saturated Fat 0g 0%
Trans Fat 0g
Cholesterol 0mg 0%
Sodium 160mg 7%
Total Carbohydrate 2g 1%
Dietary Fiber 1g 4%
Sugars 0g
Protein 1g
Vitamin A 10%
Calcium 45%
Vitamin D 25%
Riboflavin 25%
Magnesium 4%
Vitamin C 0%
Iron 4%
Vitamin E 45%
Vitamin B12 50%
Zinc 10%
Copper 2%

Jlmervin03

I actually buy both, I use almond milk for smoothies, and organic cow's milk for cooking and cereal.

Left4Good

Almond milk is healthier but i'm lactose intolorent and prefer soy milk

_lyndseybrooke_

I drink both - almond milk in my protein shakes and morning oatmeal, but skim milk when drinking it plain (usually only on weekends when I cook breakfast) and while cooking. I waste less that way, since almond milk lasts longer. The biggest reason I use almond milk, though, is because it's 30 calories per cup. Can't beat that unless you use water. And water in oatmeal? Gross!

athensguy

Almond milk has more calcium than cows milk, and I personally believe that people shouldn't drink baby cows milk. We are not built to digest it, but that is my personal opinion. I have not drunk cows milk ever (I'm weird I have had a phobia of it all my life) and have had no medical problems because of it.

Many groups of people display the evolved trait of lactase persistence. Those people are built to digest milk. People without the trait are not.

If you can digest both, it's personal preference. For some reason Almond milk seems to cause gastrointestinal difficulties for me. I prefer SO Delicious Coconut milk over almond milk (issues) and soy milk (taste).

Lately I've been using 2% milk, though, because I'm cheap and Coconut Milk is a lot more expensive than milk.

mccindy72

Sunbrooke

I started buying Soy milk years ago because I figured out that it lasts longer and I didn't drink milk fast enough, so i was always throwing it out. I realized years later that I had always been somewhat lactose intolerant. Now I buy almond milk because t is lower calorie and my family likes it.

kathyk519

I love almond milk! But I think that it is a personal choice.

I would suggest that if you want to drink cow's milk - make it organic, so that you are getting a version that is pesticide and hormone free.

From personal experience, when I had milk, i had more skin issues and blemishes. Now that I am drinking almond milk, I have clear skin.

Otherwise the milk vs almond milk debate - depending on what kind you get - either is good for you. For instance, asking a pediatrician - giving a child either is beneficial for their well being and health - it does not matter which you give them.

journey2sugar

I never post here, but I had to - the milk the Maasai people drink and the crap the Western world drinks is NOT the same! AT ALL! I've had both and wow, cow's milk I've gotten in this country makes me sick to my stomach.