Humans are not designed to drink cows milk

Human milk has a higher lactose content than cows milk.... So we have not evolved to drink cows milk specifically per se but have adapted to retain our lactase (digestive enzyme) past infancy. Cultures which drink more milk have less incidence of lactose intolerance I have heard.

100% Almond milk .... vanilla flavored/unsweetened 30/cal per cup. The BEST stuff in the world!

We weren't designed at all.

I not totally sure what humans ARE and are not designed to do. Last time I checked (about 6 months ago when my grandson was born) humans ...or any other being did NOT come with an instruction manual. And just because the experts and so called experts tell us what we should and shouldnt do ...and are and are not designed to do...does not make them right.

I like cow milk....I like meat ...and therefore I will continue to eat and drink those things we are NOT designed to eat and drink

We're designed to do what most life does..................................pass on our genes and help our species survive.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

Cows milk is full of female hormones and antibiotics which make the cows produce more milk and the antibiotics is to prevent them getting diseases due to forced large amounts of milk to be produced, then we drink the dam stuff and wonder why our men get male-boobs, prostrate cancer. Little boys being born with 'willy' deformaties and a general increase in cancer everywhere. If you have to animal milk at least go organic.

As a matter of fact, antibiotic residue is forbidden in both organic and non-organic milk. The milk needs to be discarded for several days after the last antibiotic treatment (specific period depends on which antibiotic). When the milk truck picks up at each farm, the driver will take a sample from the bulk tank. At the end of his route, the milk on his truck is tested. If there is detectable antibiotic residue, the entire truck is dumped. The sample from each farm is tested, and the farm which included the offending milk is billed for the value of the dumped milk.

As for hormones, more and more farmers are stopping using them because of how much it cuts off the productive lifetime of the cow, and many brands are hormone-free.

Animals, just like people, need antibiotics and vaccines. I honestly think it's cruelty to hold this kind of treatment to stay "organic." I heard a story from an organic farmer that she let half of her chickens die from pneumonia because they are antibiotic free, free range chickens. That is ridiculous to just let animals suffer and die to be organic. Every shot I have ever given to my livestock has on the label how long the hold is for milk and meat is. I never immorally sell milk or meat within the hold time after a shot is given. Conversations about this topic make me angry, because people have no idea what they are talking about.

i think animal activists are worse than the "clean eaters"

at least clean eaters don't try and guilt trip me with sad pictures

I am by no means an activist but without activists no one would fight for the lives of these animals and there wouldn't be as many organic products as there are now. There should be a more humane way of treating animals all over the world and burying our heads in the sand will never help accomplish this.

In what way are humans "designed" to drink almond milk?

Humans have been eating almonds for billions of years

This made me laugh quite a bit, humans have existed for no where CLOSE to even a billion years. Almonds in their current form probably haven't either. Evolution happens much more quickly than you'd think, whether cows milk is okay on your digestive system has more to do with if people in your ethnicity/ancestry drank it regularly.


As for "poor cows," I'm tired of animal abuse propaganda, as much of it is exaggerated or made up. I get my milk from cows I happen to know are happy, I've seen the farm. It's not a pristine pasture, but it's better than most children playgrounds. If you're vegan good on you I can respect that, but please do not use propaganda to spread the word.

Milk - Whole, 3.25% milkfat, 1 cup 146cal 11carb 8pro 8fat 98sodium 349potassium
Almond Breeze Original - Almond Milk, 1 cup 60cal 8carb 1pro 3fat 150sodium 180potassium

What is the big deal about almond milk? Ok, 1/2 the cals, but also most of the carbs, none of the protein of whole milk, 1/2 the fat, more sodium and less potassium.

Whole milk seems like the better option IMHO.

None of the pain and death is the main benefit IMO. But if that isn't a benefit to you I won't waste my time trying to convince you.

What pain? And death is inevitable.

I took that post to mean the pain and death of the cow.

I also think we should be drinking human milk instead of cow milk. It is way more natural that we drink our own milk opposed to milk produced from cows. I know people swear by soy milk but that is so overprocessed. I like cows milk in my tea though and lattes. Just a splash. But if breast milk were available in the stores, I would most likely choose that option instead.

I've tried a number of the different 'milks' out there and while I like them, I find them awfully sweet, so I'm going to stick to my cow's milk, thank you very much.

Though I'm pretty certain that years of generations drinking cow's milk has made it okay for us to have it.

The majority of human beings living today are considered to be lactose intolerant. It is actually a minority of people who can drink cow's milk without getting sick.

[citation needed]

Cows milk is full of female hormones and antibiotics which make the cows produce more milk and the antibiotics is to prevent them getting diseases due to forced large amounts of milk to be produced, then we drink the dam stuff and wonder why our men get male-boobs, prostrate cancer. Little boys being born with 'willy' deformaties and a general increase in cancer everywhere. If you have to animal milk at least go organic.

As a matter of fact, antibiotic residue is forbidden in both organic and non-organic milk. The milk needs to be discarded for several days after the last antibiotic treatment (specific period depends on which antibiotic). When the milk truck picks up at each farm, the driver will take a sample from the bulk tank. At the end of his route, the milk on his truck is tested. If there is detectable antibiotic residue, the entire truck is dumped. The sample from each farm is tested, and the farm which included the offending milk is billed for the value of the dumped milk.

As for hormones, more and more farmers are stopping using them because of how much it cuts off the productive lifetime of the cow, and many brands are hormone-free.

Animals, just like people, need antibiotics and vaccines. I honestly think it's cruelty to hold this kind of treatment to stay "organic." I heard a story from an organic farmer that she let half of her chickens die from pneumonia because they are antibiotic free, free range chickens. That is ridiculous to just let animals suffer and die to be organic. Every shot I have ever given to my livestock has on the label how long the hold is for milk and meat is. I never immorally sell milk or meat within the hold time after a shot is given. Conversations about this topic make me angry, because people have no idea what they are talking about.

Either your friend is crazy or you misunderstood. Chickens that die of disease may not be sold into the food chain. Giving antibiotics to cure disease can still be sold as "antibiotic free" though not as "organic". It's the use of antibiotics on healthy animals as precaution to prevent disease that is most complained about.

That's why I only drink almond milk. It has fixed all my flatulence problems. Give it a try!

While I agree 100%, we also weren't meant to consume almonds in the quantities necessary to make almond "milk". Anything in moderation is most likely better than anything in excess. It's probably unnecessary for most people to consume any liquid calories past infancy. Water should be it.

Almond milk is for baby almonds!

Milking cattle does not cause pain and death. More bunny-hugger nonsense.

Never ever? No bad practice milking farms out there anywhere?

In addition to bad practice (which does happen), it also does (to be strictly honest) causes the death of all the male calves, who cannot really be kept around as pets.

I'm okay with that. I eat meat. But it certainly does involve death, just as keeping egg-laying chickens involves the death of almost all male chicks of egg-producing strains.

So why is there still lactose intolerance among our society?

All mammals are milk drinkers at birth. It comes with being a mammal. Humans drink milk at birth, always have. But, as pointed out repeatedly in the thread, in nature after infancy there's little cause to continue production of the enzyme that digests milk because milk was not readily available for most mammals beyond infancy. . (Note: Lactose intolerance is neither an allergy nor an immune response. Lactose intolerance is due to the amount of the enzyme that you produce. If your lactose (milk sugar) intake exceeds how much of the milk-digesting enzyme that you produce, you only become 'intolerant' at the point where you take in more milk sugar than you have enzymes to digest. It's a gradation, more than an all-or-nothing).

A beneficial mutation took place that allowed humans continue to produce the enzyme to digest lactose beyond infancy, but it's only a beneficial mutation if it provides a benefit.

Domestic cows came from an extinct breed of wild cow called an aurochs that lived in North Africa and Europe. It's probably not entirely accidental that the populations with the highest prevalence of the lactase-persistant mutation for cows milk are the populations that could benefit from the available food source and it aid in their passing on their genes. (And in Northern Europe, where due to weather and lattitude there was a liklihood of vitamin D difficiency, it was a good souce of supplemental vitamin D, the presence of which helped to increase the liklihood of fertility and live births. There was less evolutionary pressure to do so in areas with higher UV levels such as South Africa or the southern parts of the Americas where adequate vitamin D could be obtained from the sunlight (or for the Innuit who got adequate Vitamin D from whale and seal blubber). It being a beneficial mutation for the people with the aurochs, allowing them to exploit a local food source and increase reproduction, the lactase-persistant mutation lived on in generations of offspring (and in the domestication of milking animals such as cows and goats).

Conversely, the aurochs did not exist in North or South America (or Austrailia or sub-Saharan Africa or Polynesia, etc.). Thus there were no cows until post Columbian exchange (so we're talking 500 years or less). For those populations, there would have been no evolutionary benefit even if the adaptation had occured because there were no cows (or goats for that matter) for milk production (and where due to UV levels, there was no pressing need for supplemental D, except for the natives in the North who got supplemental vitamin D from whales and seals).

If you look at the populations with high percentages of lactase persistance, it coincides not so accidentally with populations where it would have been of benefit to be tolerant of cows milk (therefore, lactase persistance is quite common in populations of Northern European descent and quite rare in Native American populations.)