Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Is dairy good or bad?
Replies
-
Christine_72 wrote: »DomoChan16 wrote: »Dairy is to turn a baby cow into a fully grown cow that weighs over 1,000 pounds. It's baby formula for another animal, it WILL make you fat and put you at risk of other diseases. The dairy industry is full of animal abuse as well.
I don't drink the same amount of milk a day that a 1,000lb cow does... So I have no fear of turning into a heifer
It isn't the 1,000lb cow that drinks the milk. The calf (baby cow) does, when it is still small.
Just to be clear, although I understand the argument, I actually use milk in small quantities. Just not as my main nutrient source as a baby does.0 -
DomoChan16 wrote: »Dairy is to turn a baby cow into a fully grown cow that weighs over 1,000 pounds. It's baby formula for another animal, it WILL make you fat and put you at risk of other diseases. The dairy industry is full of animal abuse as well.
Sounds like fearmongering straight off a vegan propaganda site. I've drank milk and eaten yogurt, cheese, butter. whey, etc. throughout my entire life and I'm over 50 years old. I'm neither fat nor diseased. And if you want to see animal abuse, go watch how an animal predator takes down its prey.
Yet, that's a good age to start to check regularly your prostate (chances to get prostate cancer increase with a high dairy intake).0 -
But I'm a baby cow? This is not fair. Stop making assumptions.
U DON'T KNOW MEEE!
5 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »DomoChan16 wrote: »Dairy is to turn a baby cow into a fully grown cow that weighs over 1,000 pounds. It's baby formula for another animal, it WILL make you fat and put you at risk of other diseases. The dairy industry is full of animal abuse as well.
Sounds like fearmongering straight off a vegan propaganda site. I've drank milk and eaten yogurt, cheese, butter. whey, etc. throughout my entire life and I'm over 50 years old. I'm neither fat nor diseased. And if you want to see animal abuse, go watch how an animal predator takes down its prey.
Yet, that's a good age to start to check regularly your prostate (chances to get prostate cancer increase with a high dairy intake).
Now THERE is more fear mongering.
4 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »What does it even mean to claim that milk is not MEANT for us. If we are able to be nourished by it (and many of us have the genes that allow that), how is it not meant for us in a way that other animals or animal products or plants we eat (like, say, cows themselves or chickens or deer or eggs or almonds or broccoli or bananas are)? This way of looking at it just makes no sense to me. If nothing else it presupposes intelligent design, which is a religious POV, but then doesn't finish out the argument.
I've heard the claim that humans are the only species that continue to drink milk after they're weaned.
I've also heard the claims that humans are the only species that drive cars, use computers, cook their food, preserve food in refrigerators and use microwave ovens. Any or all of those anecdotes are equally pointless when compared with other species.
Precisely. Does this mean that we aren't MEANT to do these things? Meant by whom?
Also, other animals do drink meal after being weaned when it is easily available to them. We had the natural ability to make it easy to us, just like we (and not other animals) had the natural ability to make other foods we eat more easily available through, you know, farming. So I don't get the argument that this means we aren't MEANT to do something. If anything, it would suggest that the animals who don't do this aren't meant to do it, but that we are.
As I'm not disagreeing with AnvilHead here, I would like to see the response from those who defend the "not meant to" idea, like maybe TonyB, since I honestly don't understand what they are trying to say or what it's based on.2 -
DomoChan16 wrote: »Dairy is to turn a baby cow into a fully grown cow that weighs over 1,000 pounds. It's baby formula for another animal, it WILL make you fat and put you at risk of other diseases. The dairy industry is full of animal abuse as well.
They gain a bunch of weight (you know, getting up to their normal size) on grass too, or grains. Does that mean we'd better avoid those foods, because fattening. (I suppose the anti carbers would say yes, but most of the vegan gurus do not.)1 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »DomoChan16 wrote: »Dairy is to turn a baby cow into a fully grown cow that weighs over 1,000 pounds. It's baby formula for another animal, it WILL make you fat and put you at risk of other diseases. The dairy industry is full of animal abuse as well.
Sounds like fearmongering straight off a vegan propaganda site. I've drank milk and eaten yogurt, cheese, butter. whey, etc. throughout my entire life and I'm over 50 years old. I'm neither fat nor diseased. And if you want to see animal abuse, go watch how an animal predator takes down its prey.
Yet, that's a good age to start to check regularly your prostate (chances to get prostate cancer increase with a high dairy intake).
There is no scientific evidence for that claim.5 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »lcrampton44 wrote: »One particular type of cancer that affects men—and only men—is prostate cancer. In 2011, more than 200,000 men were diagnosed with prostate cancer. A recent study linked both meat and dairy product consumption with an increased risk of death after prostate cancer. This is consistent with previous research connecting animal products with a higher risk of developing prostate cancer, as well as increased mortality.
http://www.pcrm.org/nbBlog/index.php/got-a-prostate-ditch-the-dairy
Nice plagiarism of a paragraph from a personal opinion blog by an anti-meat "doctor" linking to a deeply flawed false-dichotomy "self reporting" study.
When you look at the underlying factors, it basically correlates eating more vegetables with better health. Duh. It conveniently leaves out low-fat dairy and poultry, two linchpins of the diet for many healthy, cancer free Westerners. I see nothing in this study proving that animal products cause cancer.
http://cancerpreventionresearch.aacrjournals.org/content/8/6/545.figures-only
if you want to criticize a study, you should read it attentively first: "Food groups with loading factors less than 0.3 for both dietary patterns were not listed in the table, and included fruit juice, poultry, condiments, nuts, tea, low-fat dairy products, pizza, organ, cold breakfast cereal, wine, margarine, mayonnaise, low-energy drink, beer, coffee, high-energy drink, and liquor" (note on table 1).
It's safer to just repeat the old saying: association doesn't indicate causation
Also, seeing all that irony about Westerners not eating vegetables, I don't know if it is clear, but the study uses data from the Physicians' Health Study, that is an American study. Therefore those patients observed were all Americans or at least living in the US. So some Americans do eat vegetables in high amount (at least after a diagnosis of cancer), and others don't. It seems that the former are wiser.
Yes, Gianfranco, I diligently read every single word of that study, including the footnote you cited, which is why I pointed out that those particular foods were swept under the rug, or into a footnote, as it were: they are inconvenient, confounding factors in their attempt to create a good/evil Manichean dichotomy. If you admit, hey, lowfat milk and poultry appear to play a role in healthy diets, then it makes it more difficult to beat the drum on an anti-dairy, anti-meat agenda.
I knew it was an American study, but that is another excellent point to make: look at the shady nomenclature. WTF is even going on with this? The "Prudent Diet" (vegetables) vs. the "Western Diet," (bacon and cheez-whiz) when both diets were actually Western diets. So what message are they deliberately structuring? I will tell you. Rhetorically, they are positioning the "Western" to align with "foolish" or "stupid" in the reader's mind. That is an utterly unscientific level of bias. It is an agenda playing dress-up with selected scientific trappings.
I agree that it is pretty dumb not to eat a lot of vegetables. However, I grow and eat a robust amount of vegetables, am thoroughly Western, and am not doing so because I have been diagnosed with cancer. Probably there are one or two more Americans like me.
Anyway, thanks for the suggestion that I don't read attentively. Medice, cura te ipsum.11 -
Any animal cruelty aside I cant believe I just read pages since my last posting and how uniformed/misinformed/ and over informed people are just on milk. Information is power if used correctly and comprehended. I sit on the pro milk side. Also lactose free milk is delicious for those who have issues with Dairy. I also eat greek yogurt almost EVERY day. Oh and I eat lots of veggies and have my whole life. I guess im an anomaly...or am I really just the norm...Im going to say the latter.
also I'm not giving up my chicken either...thats a whole different cruelty conversation.
3 -
jmbmilholland wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »lcrampton44 wrote: »One particular type of cancer that affects men—and only men—is prostate cancer. In 2011, more than 200,000 men were diagnosed with prostate cancer. A recent study linked both meat and dairy product consumption with an increased risk of death after prostate cancer. This is consistent with previous research connecting animal products with a higher risk of developing prostate cancer, as well as increased mortality.
http://www.pcrm.org/nbBlog/index.php/got-a-prostate-ditch-the-dairy
Nice plagiarism of a paragraph from a personal opinion blog by an anti-meat "doctor" linking to a deeply flawed false-dichotomy "self reporting" study.
When you look at the underlying factors, it basically correlates eating more vegetables with better health. Duh. It conveniently leaves out low-fat dairy and poultry, two linchpins of the diet for many healthy, cancer free Westerners. I see nothing in this study proving that animal products cause cancer.
http://cancerpreventionresearch.aacrjournals.org/content/8/6/545.figures-only
if you want to criticize a study, you should read it attentively first: "Food groups with loading factors less than 0.3 for both dietary patterns were not listed in the table, and included fruit juice, poultry, condiments, nuts, tea, low-fat dairy products, pizza, organ, cold breakfast cereal, wine, margarine, mayonnaise, low-energy drink, beer, coffee, high-energy drink, and liquor" (note on table 1).
It's safer to just repeat the old saying: association doesn't indicate causation
Also, seeing all that irony about Westerners not eating vegetables, I don't know if it is clear, but the study uses data from the Physicians' Health Study, that is an American study. Therefore those patients observed were all Americans or at least living in the US. So some Americans do eat vegetables in high amount (at least after a diagnosis of cancer), and others don't. It seems that the former are wiser.
Yes, Gianfranco, I diligently read every single word of that study, including the footnote you cited, which is why I pointed out that those particular foods were swept under the rug, or into a footnote, as it were: they are inconvenient, confounding factors in their attempt to create a good/evil Manichean dichotomy. If you admit, hey, lowfat milk and poultry appear to play a role in healthy diets, then it makes it more difficult to beat the drum on an anti-dairy, anti-meat agenda.
I knew it was an American study, but that is another excellent point to make: look at the shady nomenclature. WTF is even going on with this? The "Prudent Diet" (vegetables) vs. the "Western Diet," (bacon and cheez-whiz) when both diets were actually Western diets. So what message are they deliberately structuring? I will tell you. Rhetorically, they are positioning the "Western" to align with "foolish" or "stupid" in the reader's mind. That is an utterly unscientific level of bias. It is an agenda playing dress-up with selected scientific trappings.
I agree that it is pretty dumb not to eat a lot of vegetables. However, I grow and eat a robust amount of vegetables, am thoroughly Western, and am not doing so because I have been diagnosed with cancer. Probably there are one or two more Americans like me.
Anyway, thanks for the suggestion that I don't read attentively. Medice, cura te ipsum.
Evil researchers from Harvard!
As for the "foolish" and the "stupid". This is beyond the scope of this actual study, but there are in fact other ones that have identified the “western pattern” as associated with rural residence, working class status, and lack of high school completion.
Evil researchers...0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »lcrampton44 wrote: »One particular type of cancer that affects men—and only men—is prostate cancer. In 2011, more than 200,000 men were diagnosed with prostate cancer. A recent study linked both meat and dairy product consumption with an increased risk of death after prostate cancer. This is consistent with previous research connecting animal products with a higher risk of developing prostate cancer, as well as increased mortality.
http://www.pcrm.org/nbBlog/index.php/got-a-prostate-ditch-the-dairy
Nice plagiarism of a paragraph from a personal opinion blog by an anti-meat "doctor" linking to a deeply flawed false-dichotomy "self reporting" study.
When you look at the underlying factors, it basically correlates eating more vegetables with better health. Duh. It conveniently leaves out low-fat dairy and poultry, two linchpins of the diet for many healthy, cancer free Westerners. I see nothing in this study proving that animal products cause cancer.
http://cancerpreventionresearch.aacrjournals.org/content/8/6/545.figures-only
if you want to criticize a study, you should read it attentively first: "Food groups with loading factors less than 0.3 for both dietary patterns were not listed in the table, and included fruit juice, poultry, condiments, nuts, tea, low-fat dairy products, pizza, organ, cold breakfast cereal, wine, margarine, mayonnaise, low-energy drink, beer, coffee, high-energy drink, and liquor" (note on table 1).
It's safer to just repeat the old saying: association doesn't indicate causation
Also, seeing all that irony about Westerners not eating vegetables, I don't know if it is clear, but the study uses data from the Physicians' Health Study, that is an American study. Therefore those patients observed were all Americans or at least living in the US. So some Americans do eat vegetables in high amount (at least after a diagnosis of cancer), and others don't. It seems that the former are wiser.
Yes, Gianfranco, I diligently read every single word of that study, including the footnote you cited, which is why I pointed out that those particular foods were swept under the rug, or into a footnote, as it were: they are inconvenient, confounding factors in their attempt to create a good/evil Manichean dichotomy. If you admit, hey, lowfat milk and poultry appear to play a role in healthy diets, then it makes it more difficult to beat the drum on an anti-dairy, anti-meat agenda.
I knew it was an American study, but that is another excellent point to make: look at the shady nomenclature. WTF is even going on with this? The "Prudent Diet" (vegetables) vs. the "Western Diet," (bacon and cheez-whiz) when both diets were actually Western diets. So what message are they deliberately structuring? I will tell you. Rhetorically, they are positioning the "Western" to align with "foolish" or "stupid" in the reader's mind. That is an utterly unscientific level of bias. It is an agenda playing dress-up with selected scientific trappings.
I agree that it is pretty dumb not to eat a lot of vegetables. However, I grow and eat a robust amount of vegetables, am thoroughly Western, and am not doing so because I have been diagnosed with cancer. Probably there are one or two more Americans like me.
Anyway, thanks for the suggestion that I don't read attentively. Medice, cura te ipsum.
Evil researchers from Harvard!
As for the "foolish" and the "stupid". This is beyond the scope of this actual study, but there are in fact other ones that have identified the “western pattern” as associated with rural residence, working class status, and lack of high school completion.
Evil researchers...
People are people, working at Harvard doesn't change intrinsic biases.5 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »lcrampton44 wrote: »One particular type of cancer that affects men—and only men—is prostate cancer. In 2011, more than 200,000 men were diagnosed with prostate cancer. A recent study linked both meat and dairy product consumption with an increased risk of death after prostate cancer. This is consistent with previous research connecting animal products with a higher risk of developing prostate cancer, as well as increased mortality.
http://www.pcrm.org/nbBlog/index.php/got-a-prostate-ditch-the-dairy
Nice plagiarism of a paragraph from a personal opinion blog by an anti-meat "doctor" linking to a deeply flawed false-dichotomy "self reporting" study.
When you look at the underlying factors, it basically correlates eating more vegetables with better health. Duh. It conveniently leaves out low-fat dairy and poultry, two linchpins of the diet for many healthy, cancer free Westerners. I see nothing in this study proving that animal products cause cancer.
http://cancerpreventionresearch.aacrjournals.org/content/8/6/545.figures-only
if you want to criticize a study, you should read it attentively first: "Food groups with loading factors less than 0.3 for both dietary patterns were not listed in the table, and included fruit juice, poultry, condiments, nuts, tea, low-fat dairy products, pizza, organ, cold breakfast cereal, wine, margarine, mayonnaise, low-energy drink, beer, coffee, high-energy drink, and liquor" (note on table 1).
It's safer to just repeat the old saying: association doesn't indicate causation
Also, seeing all that irony about Westerners not eating vegetables, I don't know if it is clear, but the study uses data from the Physicians' Health Study, that is an American study. Therefore those patients observed were all Americans or at least living in the US. So some Americans do eat vegetables in high amount (at least after a diagnosis of cancer), and others don't. It seems that the former are wiser.
Yes, Gianfranco, I diligently read every single word of that study, including the footnote you cited, which is why I pointed out that those particular foods were swept under the rug, or into a footnote, as it were: they are inconvenient, confounding factors in their attempt to create a good/evil Manichean dichotomy. If you admit, hey, lowfat milk and poultry appear to play a role in healthy diets, then it makes it more difficult to beat the drum on an anti-dairy, anti-meat agenda.
I knew it was an American study, but that is another excellent point to make: look at the shady nomenclature. WTF is even going on with this? The "Prudent Diet" (vegetables) vs. the "Western Diet," (bacon and cheez-whiz) when both diets were actually Western diets. So what message are they deliberately structuring? I will tell you. Rhetorically, they are positioning the "Western" to align with "foolish" or "stupid" in the reader's mind. That is an utterly unscientific level of bias. It is an agenda playing dress-up with selected scientific trappings.
I agree that it is pretty dumb not to eat a lot of vegetables. However, I grow and eat a robust amount of vegetables, am thoroughly Western, and am not doing so because I have been diagnosed with cancer. Probably there are one or two more Americans like me.
Anyway, thanks for the suggestion that I don't read attentively. Medice, cura te ipsum.
Evil researchers from Harvard!
As for the "foolish" and the "stupid". This is beyond the scope of this actual study, but there are in fact other ones that have identified the “western pattern” as associated with rural residence, working class status, and lack of high school completion.
Evil researchers...
What does Harvard being evil have to do with the fact that the study was poorly designed and that it doesn't demonstrate an increased risk of cancer due to dairy consumption?6 -
I'm afeared from this thread that I may have infected myself with too many dairies. How can I check my prostrate? Can someone help me check my prostrate?
8 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »lcrampton44 wrote: »One particular type of cancer that affects men—and only men—is prostate cancer. In 2011, more than 200,000 men were diagnosed with prostate cancer. A recent study linked both meat and dairy product consumption with an increased risk of death after prostate cancer. This is consistent with previous research connecting animal products with a higher risk of developing prostate cancer, as well as increased mortality.
http://www.pcrm.org/nbBlog/index.php/got-a-prostate-ditch-the-dairy
Nice plagiarism of a paragraph from a personal opinion blog by an anti-meat "doctor" linking to a deeply flawed false-dichotomy "self reporting" study.
When you look at the underlying factors, it basically correlates eating more vegetables with better health. Duh. It conveniently leaves out low-fat dairy and poultry, two linchpins of the diet for many healthy, cancer free Westerners. I see nothing in this study proving that animal products cause cancer.
http://cancerpreventionresearch.aacrjournals.org/content/8/6/545.figures-only
if you want to criticize a study, you should read it attentively first: "Food groups with loading factors less than 0.3 for both dietary patterns were not listed in the table, and included fruit juice, poultry, condiments, nuts, tea, low-fat dairy products, pizza, organ, cold breakfast cereal, wine, margarine, mayonnaise, low-energy drink, beer, coffee, high-energy drink, and liquor" (note on table 1).
It's safer to just repeat the old saying: association doesn't indicate causation
Also, seeing all that irony about Westerners not eating vegetables, I don't know if it is clear, but the study uses data from the Physicians' Health Study, that is an American study. Therefore those patients observed were all Americans or at least living in the US. So some Americans do eat vegetables in high amount (at least after a diagnosis of cancer), and others don't. It seems that the former are wiser.
Yes, Gianfranco, I diligently read every single word of that study, including the footnote you cited, which is why I pointed out that those particular foods were swept under the rug, or into a footnote, as it were: they are inconvenient, confounding factors in their attempt to create a good/evil Manichean dichotomy. If you admit, hey, lowfat milk and poultry appear to play a role in healthy diets, then it makes it more difficult to beat the drum on an anti-dairy, anti-meat agenda.
I knew it was an American study, but that is another excellent point to make: look at the shady nomenclature. WTF is even going on with this? The "Prudent Diet" (vegetables) vs. the "Western Diet," (bacon and cheez-whiz) when both diets were actually Western diets. So what message are they deliberately structuring? I will tell you. Rhetorically, they are positioning the "Western" to align with "foolish" or "stupid" in the reader's mind. That is an utterly unscientific level of bias. It is an agenda playing dress-up with selected scientific trappings.
I agree that it is pretty dumb not to eat a lot of vegetables. However, I grow and eat a robust amount of vegetables, am thoroughly Western, and am not doing so because I have been diagnosed with cancer. Probably there are one or two more Americans like me.
Anyway, thanks for the suggestion that I don't read attentively. Medice, cura te ipsum.
Evil researchers from Harvard!
She didn't say that.As for the "foolish" and the "stupid". This is beyond the scope of this actual study, but there are in fact other ones that have identified the “western pattern” as associated with rural residence, working class status, and lack of high school completion.
I'd like to see those, as I am curious.
If you are correct, I think you are supporting her point, however, as I don't see why those factors would make one more "western" than a college professor in an urban area in the US who eats lots of vegetables.
Hmm--my current favorite dairy purveyor is a highly-educated goat farmer in a college town in the midwest who is in a same-sex marriage. Don't know what class he considers himself, probably "middle class" like everyone else in the US likes to claim. Is this western? I'd think so.4 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »lcrampton44 wrote: »One particular type of cancer that affects men—and only men—is prostate cancer. In 2011, more than 200,000 men were diagnosed with prostate cancer. A recent study linked both meat and dairy product consumption with an increased risk of death after prostate cancer. This is consistent with previous research connecting animal products with a higher risk of developing prostate cancer, as well as increased mortality.
http://www.pcrm.org/nbBlog/index.php/got-a-prostate-ditch-the-dairy
Nice plagiarism of a paragraph from a personal opinion blog by an anti-meat "doctor" linking to a deeply flawed false-dichotomy "self reporting" study.
When you look at the underlying factors, it basically correlates eating more vegetables with better health. Duh. It conveniently leaves out low-fat dairy and poultry, two linchpins of the diet for many healthy, cancer free Westerners. I see nothing in this study proving that animal products cause cancer.
http://cancerpreventionresearch.aacrjournals.org/content/8/6/545.figures-only
if you want to criticize a study, you should read it attentively first: "Food groups with loading factors less than 0.3 for both dietary patterns were not listed in the table, and included fruit juice, poultry, condiments, nuts, tea, low-fat dairy products, pizza, organ, cold breakfast cereal, wine, margarine, mayonnaise, low-energy drink, beer, coffee, high-energy drink, and liquor" (note on table 1).
It's safer to just repeat the old saying: association doesn't indicate causation
Also, seeing all that irony about Westerners not eating vegetables, I don't know if it is clear, but the study uses data from the Physicians' Health Study, that is an American study. Therefore those patients observed were all Americans or at least living in the US. So some Americans do eat vegetables in high amount (at least after a diagnosis of cancer), and others don't. It seems that the former are wiser.
Yes, Gianfranco, I diligently read every single word of that study, including the footnote you cited, which is why I pointed out that those particular foods were swept under the rug, or into a footnote, as it were: they are inconvenient, confounding factors in their attempt to create a good/evil Manichean dichotomy. If you admit, hey, lowfat milk and poultry appear to play a role in healthy diets, then it makes it more difficult to beat the drum on an anti-dairy, anti-meat agenda.
I knew it was an American study, but that is another excellent point to make: look at the shady nomenclature. WTF is even going on with this? The "Prudent Diet" (vegetables) vs. the "Western Diet," (bacon and cheez-whiz) when both diets were actually Western diets. So what message are they deliberately structuring? I will tell you. Rhetorically, they are positioning the "Western" to align with "foolish" or "stupid" in the reader's mind. That is an utterly unscientific level of bias. It is an agenda playing dress-up with selected scientific trappings.
I agree that it is pretty dumb not to eat a lot of vegetables. However, I grow and eat a robust amount of vegetables, am thoroughly Western, and am not doing so because I have been diagnosed with cancer. Probably there are one or two more Americans like me.
Anyway, thanks for the suggestion that I don't read attentively. Medice, cura te ipsum.
Evil researchers from Harvard!
As for the "foolish" and the "stupid". This is beyond the scope of this actual study, but there are in fact other ones that have identified the “western pattern” as associated with rural residence, working class status, and lack of high school completion.
Evil researchers...
I never said they were evil, I said their research was biased, unscientific and a big pile of crap. Why don't you address the substance of what I said instead of twisting up a strawman?
I suspect the studies on the alleged "western pattern diet" are equally crap from a methodology perspective. I live near hundreds of rural, working class families educated only through 8th grade. The men are well-muscled, lean, clear-eyed, handsome, and can rock a resplendent beard. The women are strong, trim, hard working, and have complexions as clear as a bell. As a whole, they live off of copious amounts of typical Western foods like chicken dumplings, beef stews, gallons of full-fat raw milk and cream, eggs, pies, cookies, jams and jellies, potatoes, all the gravy, all the syrup, all the sausages and bacon, full fat colby and cheddar type cheeses, and assorted pickled items. And yet:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23284714
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19779840
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9702148
Huh, wonder what makes the difference.7 -
Salsa counts as a vegetable, right?
Lots of salsa out west.4 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Salsa counts as a vegetable, right?
Lots of salsa out west.
I bet you like salsa❤️0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Salsa counts as a vegetable, right?
Lots of salsa out west.
I bet you like salsa❤️
Indeed. I make my own and it's delicious.
Milk is a great beverage choice paired with a chicken quesadilla slathered in hot salsa, btw.5 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Salsa counts as a vegetable, right?
Lots of salsa out west.
I bet you like salsa❤️
Indeed. I make my own and it's delicious.
Milk is a great beverage choice paired with a chicken quesadilla slathered in hot salsa, btw.
And with the requisite Oreos for dessert as well!5 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Salsa counts as a vegetable, right?
Lots of salsa out west.
I bet you like salsa❤️
Indeed. I make my own and it's delicious.
Milk is a great beverage choice paired with a chicken quesadilla slathered in hot salsa, btw.
And with the requisite Oreos for dessert as well!
Which are of course soaked in milk.5 -
If lactose intolerant it can cause gas and offend other people at parties and when making nasty.1
-
-
-
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
^ My favorite (and I'm not even lactose intolerant). I drink it in my protein shakes, use it for my cereal, and of course, dip my Oreos in it. Great macro profile.0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
What do you make it with (other than the milk). That sounds like an amazing breakfast, particularly now that we're under snow
2 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
What do you make it with (other than the milk). That sounds like an amazing breakfast, particularly now that we're under snow
Nothing fancy. Just pumpkin pie spice and liquid splenda. I have an electric milk frother that heats the milk and froths it and was worth every penny. It was about $30 on Amazon. I put a little maple extract in the milk sometimes.
I find milk to be very filling. I also have another one for an afternoon snack with an apple, and that keeps me really full too.2 -
Food product for humans (Wiki)
The Holstein Friesian cattle is the dominant breed in quintessential industrialized dairy farms today
In many cultures of the world, especially the West, humans continue to consume milk beyond infancy, using the milk of other animals (especially cattle, goats and sheep) as a food product. Initially, the ability to digest milk was limited to children as adults did not produce lactase, an enzyme necessary for digesting the lactose in milk. Milk was therefore converted to curd, cheese and other products to reduce the levels of lactose. Thousands of years ago, a chance mutation spread in human populations in Europe that enabled the production of lactase in adulthood. This allowed milk to be used as a new source of nutrition which could sustain populations when other food sources failed.[16] Milk is processed into a variety of dairy products such as cream, butter, yogurt, kefir, ice cream, and cheese. Modern industrial processes use milk to produce casein, whey protein, lactose, condensed milk, powdered milk, and many other food-additives and industrial products.
Whole milk, butter and cream have high levels of saturated fat.[17][18] The sugar lactose is found only in milk, forsythia flowers, and a few tropical shrubs. The enzyme needed to digest lactose, lactase, reaches its highest levels in the small intestine after birth and then begins a slow decline unless milk is consumed regularly.[19] Those groups who do continue to tolerate milk, however, often have exercised great creativity in using the milk of domesticated ungulates, not only of cattle, but also sheep, goats, yaks, water buffalo, horses, reindeer and camels. The largest producer and consumer of cattle and buffalo milk in the world is India.[20]
3 -
cushman5279 wrote: »Food product for humans (Wiki)
The Holstein Friesian cattle is the dominant breed in quintessential industrialized dairy farms today
In many cultures of the world, especially the West, humans continue to consume milk beyond infancy, using the milk of other animals (especially cattle, goats and sheep) as a food product. Initially, the ability to digest milk was limited to children as adults did not produce lactase, an enzyme necessary for digesting the lactose in milk. Milk was therefore converted to curd, cheese and other products to reduce the levels of lactose. Thousands of years ago, a chance mutation spread in human populations in Europe that enabled the production of lactase in adulthood. This allowed milk to be used as a new source of nutrition which could sustain populations when other food sources failed.[16] Milk is processed into a variety of dairy products such as cream, butter, yogurt, kefir, ice cream, and cheese. Modern industrial processes use milk to produce casein, whey protein, lactose, condensed milk, powdered milk, and many other food-additives and industrial products.
Whole milk, butter and cream have high levels of saturated fat.[17][18] The sugar lactose is found only in milk, forsythia flowers, and a few tropical shrubs. The enzyme needed to digest lactose, lactase, reaches its highest levels in the small intestine after birth and then begins a slow decline unless milk is consumed regularly.[19] Those groups who do continue to tolerate milk, however, often have exercised great creativity in using the milk of domesticated ungulates, not only of cattle, but also sheep, goats, yaks, water buffalo, horses, reindeer and camels. The largest producer and consumer of cattle and buffalo milk in the world is India.[20]
Yep. We got lucky and now it's perfectly fine for most of us.2 -
cushman5279 wrote: »Food product for humans (Wiki)
The Holstein Friesian cattle is the dominant breed in quintessential industrialized dairy farms today
In many cultures of the world, especially the West, humans continue to consume milk beyond infancy, using the milk of other animals (especially cattle, goats and sheep) as a food product. Initially, the ability to digest milk was limited to children as adults did not produce lactase, an enzyme necessary for digesting the lactose in milk. Milk was therefore converted to curd, cheese and other products to reduce the levels of lactose. Thousands of years ago, a chance mutation spread in human populations in Europe that enabled the production of lactase in adulthood. This allowed milk to be used as a new source of nutrition which could sustain populations when other food sources failed.[16] Milk is processed into a variety of dairy products such as cream, butter, yogurt, kefir, ice cream, and cheese. Modern industrial processes use milk to produce casein, whey protein, lactose, condensed milk, powdered milk, and many other food-additives and industrial products.
Whole milk, butter and cream have high levels of saturated fat.[17][18] The sugar lactose is found only in milk, forsythia flowers, and a few tropical shrubs. The enzyme needed to digest lactose, lactase, reaches its highest levels in the small intestine after birth and then begins a slow decline unless milk is consumed regularly.[19] Those groups who do continue to tolerate milk, however, often have exercised great creativity in using the milk of domesticated ungulates, not only of cattle, but also sheep, goats, yaks, water buffalo, horses, reindeer and camels. The largest producer and consumer of cattle and buffalo milk in the world is India.[20]
Yep. We got lucky and now it's perfectly fine for most of us.
Luck has nothing to do with it.
1 -
cushman5279 wrote: »cushman5279 wrote: »Food product for humans (Wiki)
The Holstein Friesian cattle is the dominant breed in quintessential industrialized dairy farms today
In many cultures of the world, especially the West, humans continue to consume milk beyond infancy, using the milk of other animals (especially cattle, goats and sheep) as a food product. Initially, the ability to digest milk was limited to children as adults did not produce lactase, an enzyme necessary for digesting the lactose in milk. Milk was therefore converted to curd, cheese and other products to reduce the levels of lactose. Thousands of years ago, a chance mutation spread in human populations in Europe that enabled the production of lactase in adulthood. This allowed milk to be used as a new source of nutrition which could sustain populations when other food sources failed.[16] Milk is processed into a variety of dairy products such as cream, butter, yogurt, kefir, ice cream, and cheese. Modern industrial processes use milk to produce casein, whey protein, lactose, condensed milk, powdered milk, and many other food-additives and industrial products.
Whole milk, butter and cream have high levels of saturated fat.[17][18] The sugar lactose is found only in milk, forsythia flowers, and a few tropical shrubs. The enzyme needed to digest lactose, lactase, reaches its highest levels in the small intestine after birth and then begins a slow decline unless milk is consumed regularly.[19] Those groups who do continue to tolerate milk, however, often have exercised great creativity in using the milk of domesticated ungulates, not only of cattle, but also sheep, goats, yaks, water buffalo, horses, reindeer and camels. The largest producer and consumer of cattle and buffalo milk in the world is India.[20]
Yep. We got lucky and now it's perfectly fine for most of us.
Luck has nothing to do with it.
We got *busy* and now it is perfectly fine for most of us.
Gives a new meaning to...
Brown chicken brown cowwwwww!!!3
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions