Is dairy actually bad for you?

lynn_glenmont wrote: »

TenderBlender667 wrote: »

It's a slippery slope. One of the main reasons dairy is bad is because it's chalk full of hormones especially non-organic varieties. The process of homogenization makes it easier for the fat molecules to surpass digestion, which causes steriods/hormones from dairy to get absorbed into the bloodstream more readily than non-homogenized dairy. Rbgh is a common artificial hormone that is present in some dairy products. While no scientific evidence is available to prove its negative effect on health, it has been discovered that cows injected with this hormone are more likely to produce offspring with birth defects and other health problems. Many countries have banned the use of rbgh so make sure to check the labels.

I personally think dairy in small amounts is good, especially greek yogurt and fermented yogurts with live bacterial cultures in them. Keep in mind if you buy the sweetened yogurts, your intestines do not absorb the bacterial cultures which is supposed to provide the "digestive support" it claims to. Also, sheep and goat dairy naturally contains less hormones and casein which may be a good alternative for those who are sensitive to cows milk. My personal favorite is a local brand of non homogenized organic goat milk. It's not something I drink everyday, but I do like to have it on occasion.

This doesn't even make sense. 100+ years ago consumers were being defrauded by the sale of "milk" that was just chalk dissolved in water, but that was before milk was regulated. And even if it were still happening, chalk is a mineral -- it doesn't come with hormones. Why would someone trying to pass off chalky water as milk bother mixing in hormones at an added cost?

I think the poster meant "chock full of hormones," but that led me to wonder why someone not a native speaker would use a folksy turn of phrase that isn't all that common and sounds rather weird, and it struck me that I'd seen that usage before and searched and, yep, as expected, a LOT of the bad information dairy scare sites use exactly that language. You can very often tell that someone is parroting some website from the use of jargony sounding language. Another example I've seen and that bugs me is everyone going on about foods being "just packed with" something -- that's not a natural way of talking outside diet sites, but seems really common on them, and is a good sign of where someone is getting their information.

I'm trying to figure out how homogenizing milk makes it easy to avoid digesting fat. Seems to make skim milk kind of unnecessary, no, as whole but homogenized would have the same calories. Of course, that's nonsense.

And if something is "surpassing" digestion, then it would just pass out of the body as waste, not be absorbed more readily. (I see this fallacy all the time on here, more typically in the form of "X is unnatural, so our bodies don't recognize it and can't digest it, and therefore it gets stored as fat." No, it doesn't work that way. No absorbing or storing if it resists digestion.)

So much this. Drives me crazy.

If rBGH is banned in a country, what's the point in checking the label? If a manufacturer is using milk from cows illegally dosed with rBGH, I doubt they would admit it on the label.

I tend to prefer plain yogurt myself, but do you have any proof of your claim that sweetened yogurt somehow blocks your intestines from "absorbing" the bacterial cultures (which isn't really what happens; the bacteria colonizes your gut -- if your intestines "absorbed" them, they would move into your blood stream, and do you no good from a digestive standpoint). If you have a piece of fruit with your plain yogurt, does that negate the value of the bacteria? Why is the sugar in the fruit different? What about the naturally occurring sugar in the yogurt (6 to 9 grams per cup in plain, traditional - i.e., unstrained -- yogurts in my refrigerator right now? Why is that sugar different?

Yes, exactly. I hope you get responses to your questions.

If I weren't aware that that's a common internet discussion tactic that some seem to think is somehow helpful, I'd ask how you could read that post as worked up. But it's okay, I get it.

lemurcat12 wrote: »

lynn_glenmont wrote: »

TenderBlender667 wrote: »

It's a slippery slope. One of the main reasons dairy is bad is because it's chalk full of hormones especially non-organic varieties. The process of homogenization makes it easier for the fat molecules to surpass digestion, which causes steriods/hormones from dairy to get absorbed into the bloodstream more readily than non-homogenized dairy. Rbgh is a common artificial hormone that is present in some dairy products. While no scientific evidence is available to prove its negative effect on health, it has been discovered that cows injected with this hormone are more likely to produce offspring with birth defects and other health problems. Many countries have banned the use of rbgh so make sure to check the labels.

I personally think dairy in small amounts is good, especially greek yogurt and fermented yogurts with live bacterial cultures in them. Keep in mind if you buy the sweetened yogurts, your intestines do not absorb the bacterial cultures which is supposed to provide the "digestive support" it claims to. Also, sheep and goat dairy naturally contains less hormones and casein which may be a good alternative for those who are sensitive to cows milk. My personal favorite is a local brand of non homogenized organic goat milk. It's not something I drink everyday, but I do like to have it on occasion.

This doesn't even make sense. 100+ years ago consumers were being defrauded by the sale of "milk" that was just chalk dissolved in water, but that was before milk was regulated. And even if it were still happening, chalk is a mineral -- it doesn't come with hormones. Why would someone trying to pass off chalky water as milk bother mixing in hormones at an added cost?

I think the poster meant "chock full of hormones," but that led me to wonder why someone not a native speaker would use a folksy turn of phrase that isn't all that common and sounds rather weird, and it struck me that I'd seen that usage before and searched and, yep, as expected, a LOT of the bad information dairy scare sites use exactly that language. You can very often tell that someone is parroting some website from the use of jargony sounding language. Another example I've seen and that bugs me is everyone going on about foods being "just packed with" something -- that's not a natural way of talking outside diet sites, but seems really common on them, and is a good sign of where someone is getting their information.

I'm trying to figure out how homogenizing milk makes it easy to avoid digesting fat. Seems to make skim milk kind of unnecessary, no, as whole but homogenized would have the same calories. Of course, that's nonsense.

And if something is "surpassing" digestion, then it would just pass out of the body as waste, not be absorbed more readily. (I see this fallacy all the time on here, more typically in the form of "X is unnatural, so our bodies don't recognize it and can't digest it, and therefore it gets stored as fat." No, it doesn't work that way. No absorbing or storing if it resists digestion.)

So much this. Drives me crazy.

If rBGH is banned in a country, what's the point in checking the label? If a manufacturer is using milk from cows illegally dosed with rBGH, I doubt they would admit it on the label.

I tend to prefer plain yogurt myself, but do you have any proof of your claim that sweetened yogurt somehow blocks your intestines from "absorbing" the bacterial cultures (which isn't really what happens; the bacteria colonizes your gut -- if your intestines "absorbed" them, they would move into your blood stream, and do you no good from a digestive standpoint). If you have a piece of fruit with your plain yogurt, does that negate the value of the bacteria? Why is the sugar in the fruit different? What about the naturally occurring sugar in the yogurt (6 to 9 grams per cup in plain, traditional - i.e., unstrained -- yogurts in my refrigerator right now? Why is that sugar different?

Yes, exactly. I hope you get responses to your questions.

If you're referring to condensed milk in cans, the main ingredient in there is still cows milk. The amount of hormones that is absorbed in the human body is not known and there's not enough research to show the effects of hormones from food consumption, but there certainly is a link between dairy and hormone sensitive cancers such as breast and prostate cancer.

I did mean chock and you can indeed blame that on the fact that I spent too much time reading useless websites in the past. I've expanded my knowledge since then and most of what I wrote yesterday is based on a combination of what I'm learning in school and more reliable sources than say, Dr. Oz.

I meant milk surpassing digestion in the stomach and reaching the small intestine where most of the nutrients and chemicals are absorbed. The unnaturally small globules in homogenized milk may have an effect on chemical reaction time in the intestines due to to the fact that it digests much quicker than non-homogenized milk which increases surface area and therefore reaches the bloodstream faster.
Non-homogenized milk takes longer to digest due to the size of the fat globules. The slower digestion is, the longer it takes to reach the blood. This could increase satiety and POSSIBLY decrease the amount of hormones that is being absorbed from the milk. There is not enough research done to prove this theory. That's why it's just a theory.

I agree with you there. Some companies do state that their dairy is free of added hormones, but it's not a common practice. It's still good to check labels and contact companies for more information about the product if their label doesn't include it.

I just meant too much sugar in general increases the bad gut bacteria. I'm aware that absorbing wasn't the right word to use in this situation. I was in a rush while writing my post and my English isn't perfect. The piece of fruit won't negate it, especially if it's low on the glycemic index (ex. berries). The prebiotic fibre present in fruit is basically "food" for the probiotics which means fruit is beneficial for the overall gut flora as long as it's not consumed in excess. The problem nowadays is that fruit has been modified to be much sweeter than it was decades ago, so it can cause other digestion related issues. The takeaway here is that the sugar from fruit is still better than refined sugar due its fiber content which supports healthy gut flora and satiety as long as it's not consumed in excess.

TenderBlender667 wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

lynn_glenmont wrote: »

TenderBlender667 wrote: »

It's a slippery slope. One of the main reasons dairy is bad is because it's chalk full of hormones especially non-organic varieties. The process of homogenization makes it easier for the fat molecules to surpass digestion, which causes steriods/hormones from dairy to get absorbed into the bloodstream more readily than non-homogenized dairy. Rbgh is a common artificial hormone that is present in some dairy products. While no scientific evidence is available to prove its negative effect on health, it has been discovered that cows injected with this hormone are more likely to produce offspring with birth defects and other health problems. Many countries have banned the use of rbgh so make sure to check the labels.

I personally think dairy in small amounts is good, especially greek yogurt and fermented yogurts with live bacterial cultures in them. Keep in mind if you buy the sweetened yogurts, your intestines do not absorb the bacterial cultures which is supposed to provide the "digestive support" it claims to. Also, sheep and goat dairy naturally contains less hormones and casein which may be a good alternative for those who are sensitive to cows milk. My personal favorite is a local brand of non homogenized organic goat milk. It's not something I drink everyday, but I do like to have it on occasion.

This doesn't even make sense. 100+ years ago consumers were being defrauded by the sale of "milk" that was just chalk dissolved in water, but that was before milk was regulated. And even if it were still happening, chalk is a mineral -- it doesn't come with hormones. Why would someone trying to pass off chalky water as milk bother mixing in hormones at an added cost?

I think the poster meant "chock full of hormones," but that led me to wonder why someone not a native speaker would use a folksy turn of phrase that isn't all that common and sounds rather weird, and it struck me that I'd seen that usage before and searched and, yep, as expected, a LOT of the bad information dairy scare sites use exactly that language. You can very often tell that someone is parroting some website from the use of jargony sounding language. Another example I've seen and that bugs me is everyone going on about foods being "just packed with" something -- that's not a natural way of talking outside diet sites, but seems really common on them, and is a good sign of where someone is getting their information.

I'm trying to figure out how homogenizing milk makes it easy to avoid digesting fat. Seems to make skim milk kind of unnecessary, no, as whole but homogenized would have the same calories. Of course, that's nonsense.

And if something is "surpassing" digestion, then it would just pass out of the body as waste, not be absorbed more readily. (I see this fallacy all the time on here, more typically in the form of "X is unnatural, so our bodies don't recognize it and can't digest it, and therefore it gets stored as fat." No, it doesn't work that way. No absorbing or storing if it resists digestion.)

So much this. Drives me crazy.

If rBGH is banned in a country, what's the point in checking the label? If a manufacturer is using milk from cows illegally dosed with rBGH, I doubt they would admit it on the label.

I tend to prefer plain yogurt myself, but do you have any proof of your claim that sweetened yogurt somehow blocks your intestines from "absorbing" the bacterial cultures (which isn't really what happens; the bacteria colonizes your gut -- if your intestines "absorbed" them, they would move into your blood stream, and do you no good from a digestive standpoint). If you have a piece of fruit with your plain yogurt, does that negate the value of the bacteria? Why is the What about the naturally occurring sugar in the yogurt (6 to 9 grams per cup in plain, traditional - i.e., unstrained -- yogurts in my refrigerator right now? Why is that sugar different?

Yes, exactly. I hope you get responses to your questions.

If you're referring to condensed milk in cans, the main ingredient in there is still cows milk. The amount of hormones that is absorbed in the human body is not known and there's not enough research to show the effects of hormones from food consumption, but there certainly is a link between dairy and hormone sensitive cancers such as breast and prostate cancer.

Can you cite the studies establishing such a link?

TenderBlender667 wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

lynn_glenmont wrote: »

TenderBlender667 wrote: »

It's a slippery slope. One of the main reasons dairy is bad is because it's chalk full of hormones especially non-organic varieties. The process of homogenization makes it easier for the fat molecules to surpass digestion, which causes steriods/hormones from dairy to get absorbed into the bloodstream more readily than non-homogenized dairy. Rbgh is a common artificial hormone that is present in some dairy products. While no scientific evidence is available to prove its negative effect on health, it has been discovered that cows injected with this hormone are more likely to produce offspring with birth defects and other health problems. Many countries have banned the use of rbgh so make sure to check the labels.

I personally think dairy in small amounts is good, especially greek yogurt and fermented yogurts with live bacterial cultures in them. Keep in mind if you buy the sweetened yogurts, your intestines do not absorb the bacterial cultures which is supposed to provide the "digestive support" it claims to. Also, sheep and goat dairy naturally contains less hormones and casein which may be a good alternative for those who are sensitive to cows milk. My personal favorite is a local brand of non homogenized organic goat milk. It's not something I drink everyday, but I do like to have it on occasion.

This doesn't even make sense. 100+ years ago consumers were being defrauded by the sale of "milk" that was just chalk dissolved in water, but that was before milk was regulated. And even if it were still happening, chalk is a mineral -- it doesn't come with hormones. Why would someone trying to pass off chalky water as milk bother mixing in hormones at an added cost?

I think the poster meant "chock full of hormones," but that led me to wonder why someone not a native speaker would use a folksy turn of phrase that isn't all that common and sounds rather weird, and it struck me that I'd seen that usage before and searched and, yep, as expected, a LOT of the bad information dairy scare sites use exactly that language. You can very often tell that someone is parroting some website from the use of jargony sounding language. Another example I've seen and that bugs me is everyone going on about foods being "just packed with" something -- that's not a natural way of talking outside diet sites, but seems really common on them, and is a good sign of where someone is getting their information.

I'm trying to figure out how homogenizing milk makes it easy to avoid digesting fat. Seems to make skim milk kind of unnecessary, no, as whole but homogenized would have the same calories. Of course, that's nonsense.

And if something is "surpassing" digestion, then it would just pass out of the body as waste, not be absorbed more readily. (I see this fallacy all the time on here, more typically in the form of "X is unnatural, so our bodies don't recognize it and can't digest it, and therefore it gets stored as fat." No, it doesn't work that way. No absorbing or storing if it resists digestion.)

So much this. Drives me crazy.

If rBGH is banned in a country, what's the point in checking the label? If a manufacturer is using milk from cows illegally dosed with rBGH, I doubt they would admit it on the label.

I tend to prefer plain yogurt myself, but do you have any proof of your claim that sweetened yogurt somehow blocks your intestines from "absorbing" the bacterial cultures (which isn't really what happens; the bacteria colonizes your gut -- if your intestines "absorbed" them, they would move into your blood stream, and do you no good from a digestive standpoint). If you have a piece of fruit with your plain yogurt, does that negate the value of the bacteria? Why is the sugar in the fruit different? What about the naturally occurring sugar in the yogurt (6 to 9 grams per cup in plain, traditional - i.e., unstrained -- yogurts in my refrigerator right now? Why is that sugar different?

Yes, exactly. I hope you get responses to your questions.

I did mean chock and you can indeed blame that on the fact that I spent too much time reading useless websites in the past. I've expanded my knowledge since then and most of what I wrote yesterday is based on a combination of what I'm learning in school and more reliable sources than say, Dr. Oz.

And what sources are those?

TenderBlender667 wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

lynn_glenmont wrote: »

TenderBlender667 wrote: »

It's a slippery slope. One of the main reasons dairy is bad is because it's chalk full of hormones especially non-organic varieties. The process of homogenization makes it easier for the fat molecules to surpass digestion, which causes steriods/hormones from dairy to get absorbed into the bloodstream more readily than non-homogenized dairy. Rbgh is a common artificial hormone that is present in some dairy products. While no scientific evidence is available to prove its negative effect on health, it has been discovered that cows injected with this hormone are more likely to produce offspring with birth defects and other health problems. Many countries have banned the use of rbgh so make sure to check the labels.

I personally think dairy in small amounts is good, especially greek yogurt and fermented yogurts with live bacterial cultures in them. Keep in mind if you buy the sweetened yogurts, your intestines do not absorb the bacterial cultures which is supposed to provide the "digestive support" it claims to. Also, sheep and goat dairy naturally contains less hormones and casein which may be a good alternative for those who are sensitive to cows milk. My personal favorite is a local brand of non homogenized organic goat milk. It's not something I drink everyday, but I do like to have it on occasion.

This doesn't even make sense. 100+ years ago consumers were being defrauded by the sale of "milk" that was just chalk dissolved in water, but that was before milk was regulated. And even if it were still happening, chalk is a mineral -- it doesn't come with hormones. Why would someone trying to pass off chalky water as milk bother mixing in hormones at an added cost?

I think the poster meant "chock full of hormones," but that led me to wonder why someone not a native speaker would use a folksy turn of phrase that isn't all that common and sounds rather weird, and it struck me that I'd seen that usage before and searched and, yep, as expected, a LOT of the bad information dairy scare sites use exactly that language. You can very often tell that someone is parroting some website from the use of jargony sounding language. Another example I've seen and that bugs me is everyone going on about foods being "just packed with" something -- that's not a natural way of talking outside diet sites, but seems really common on them, and is a good sign of where someone is getting their information.

I'm trying to figure out how homogenizing milk makes it easy to avoid digesting fat. Seems to make skim milk kind of unnecessary, no, as whole but homogenized would have the same calories. Of course, that's nonsense.

And if something is "surpassing" digestion, then it would just pass out of the body as waste, not be absorbed more readily. (I see this fallacy all the time on here, more typically in the form of "X is unnatural, so our bodies don't recognize it and can't digest it, and therefore it gets stored as fat." No, it doesn't work that way. No absorbing or storing if it resists digestion.)

So much this. Drives me crazy.

If rBGH is banned in a country, what's the point in checking the label? If a manufacturer is using milk from cows illegally dosed with rBGH, I doubt they would admit it on the label.

I tend to prefer plain yogurt myself, but do you have any proof of your claim that sweetened yogurt somehow blocks your intestines from "absorbing" the bacterial cultures (which isn't really what happens; the bacteria colonizes your gut -- if your intestines "absorbed" them, they would move into your blood stream, and do you no good from a digestive standpoint). If you have a piece of fruit with your plain yogurt, does that negate the value of the bacteria? Why is the sugar in the fruit different? What about the naturally occurring sugar in the yogurt (6 to 9 grams per cup in plain, traditional - i.e., unstrained -- yogurts in my refrigerator right now? Why is that sugar different?

Yes, exactly. I hope you get responses to your questions.

I meant milk surpassing digestion in the stomach and reaching the small intestine where most of the nutrients and chemicals are absorbed. The unnaturally small globules in homogenized milk may have an effect on chemical reaction time in the intestines due to to the fact that it digests much quicker than non-homogenized milk which increases surface area and therefore reaches the bloodstream faster.
Non-homogenized milk takes longer to digest due to the size of the fat globules. The slower digestion is, the longer it takes to reach the blood. This could increase satiety and POSSIBLY decrease the amount of hormones that is being absorbed from the milk. There is not enough research done to prove this theory. That's why it's just a theory.

Is there ANY research to validate it at all? This sounds more like something a blogger would make up than the results of a legitimate study.

TenderBlender667 wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

lynn_glenmont wrote: »

TenderBlender667 wrote: »

It's a slippery slope. One of the main reasons dairy is bad is because it's chalk full of hormones especially non-organic varieties. The process of homogenization makes it easier for the fat molecules to surpass digestion, which causes steriods/hormones from dairy to get absorbed into the bloodstream more readily than non-homogenized dairy. Rbgh is a common artificial hormone that is present in some dairy products. While no scientific evidence is available to prove its negative effect on health, it has been discovered that cows injected with this hormone are more likely to produce offspring with birth defects and other health problems. Many countries have banned the use of rbgh so make sure to check the labels.

I personally think dairy in small amounts is good, especially greek yogurt and fermented yogurts with live bacterial cultures in them. Keep in mind if you buy the sweetened yogurts, your intestines do not absorb the bacterial cultures which is supposed to provide the "digestive support" it claims to. Also, sheep and goat dairy naturally contains less hormones and casein which may be a good alternative for those who are sensitive to cows milk. My personal favorite is a local brand of non homogenized organic goat milk. It's not something I drink everyday, but I do like to have it on occasion.

This doesn't even make sense. 100+ years ago consumers were being defrauded by the sale of "milk" that was just chalk dissolved in water, but that was before milk was regulated. And even if it were still happening, chalk is a mineral -- it doesn't come with hormones. Why would someone trying to pass off chalky water as milk bother mixing in hormones at an added cost?

I think the poster meant "chock full of hormones," but that led me to wonder why someone not a native speaker would use a folksy turn of phrase that isn't all that common and sounds rather weird, and it struck me that I'd seen that usage before and searched and, yep, as expected, a LOT of the bad information dairy scare sites use exactly that language. You can very often tell that someone is parroting some website from the use of jargony sounding language. Another example I've seen and that bugs me is everyone going on about foods being "just packed with" something -- that's not a natural way of talking outside diet sites, but seems really common on them, and is a good sign of where someone is getting their information.

I'm trying to figure out how homogenizing milk makes it easy to avoid digesting fat. Seems to make skim milk kind of unnecessary, no, as whole but homogenized would have the same calories. Of course, that's nonsense.

And if something is "surpassing" digestion, then it would just pass out of the body as waste, not be absorbed more readily. (I see this fallacy all the time on here, more typically in the form of "X is unnatural, so our bodies don't recognize it and can't digest it, and therefore it gets stored as fat." No, it doesn't work that way. No absorbing or storing if it resists digestion.)

So much this. Drives me crazy.

If rBGH is banned in a country, what's the point in checking the label? If a manufacturer is using milk from cows illegally dosed with rBGH, I doubt they would admit it on the label.

I tend to prefer plain yogurt myself, but do you have any proof of your claim that sweetened yogurt somehow blocks your intestines from "absorbing" the bacterial cultures (which isn't really what happens; the bacteria colonizes your gut -- if your intestines "absorbed" them, they would move into your blood stream, and do you no good from a digestive standpoint). If you have a piece of fruit with your plain yogurt, does that negate the value of the bacteria? Why is the sugar in the fruit different? What about the naturally occurring sugar in the yogurt (6 to 9 grams per cup in plain, traditional - i.e., unstrained -- yogurts in my refrigerator right now? Why is that sugar different?

Yes, exactly. I hope you get responses to your questions.

I just meant too much sugar in general increases the bad gut bacteria. I'm aware that absorbing wasn't the right word to use in this situation. I was in a rush while writing my post and my English isn't perfect. The piece of fruit won't negate it, especially if it's low on the glycemic index (ex. berries). The prebiotic fibre present in fruit is basically "food" for the probiotics which means fruit is beneficial for the overall gut flora as long as it's not consumed in excess. The problem nowadays is that fruit has been modified to be much sweeter than it was decades ago, so it can cause other digestion related issues. The takeaway here is that the sugar from fruit is still better than refined sugar due its fiber content which supports healthy gut flora and satiety as long as it's not consumed in excess.

There are flaws in the logic here.
Cultured, sweetened yogurts actually contain and provide probiotic cultures to the gut. Yet you say this is hindered by the presence of bad bacteria eating the sugar.
Fruit contains sugar (so presumably the same bad bacteria) but you say it's ok because fiber will feed the probiotics already in your gut.
How is adding live cultures to your gut not more beneficial from a gut flora perspective than adding fiber??

TenderBlender667 wrote: »

There is not enough research done to prove this theory. That's why it's just a theory.

I just wanted to address this line from your post. This is not how the scientific community uses the word "theory" at all. A scientific theory does not mean, as it would colloquially, "a postulated idea with little or no supporting data." Instead, scientific theories are well-supported explanations for various phenomena, backed up by repeated observation and/or experimentation. If there is "not enough research" to support a given hypothesis, that means the hypothesis shouldn't be postulated as true -- not that it's okay because it's "just a theory."

saintor1 wrote: »

AnvilHead wrote: »

savedbygrace1007 wrote: »

Watch the documentary Forks over knives

Forks Over Knives isn't a "documentary". It's a biased, one-sided hack job with an agenda, filled with junk science and half-truths.

If I'm going to watch fiction, I at least want it to be enjoyable.

Your opinion.

There is a quite science behind those movements. It is reckless to get the baby thrown out with the bathwater.

http://www.pcrm.org/health/diets/vegdiets/health-concerns-about-dairy-products

Conclusions
Milk and dairy products are not necessary in the diet and can, in fact, be harmful to health. It is best to consume a healthful diet of grains, fruits, vegetables, legumes, and fortified foods including cereals and juices. These nutrient-dense foods can help you meet your calcium, potassium, riboflavin, and vitamin D requirements with ease—and without facing the health risks associated with dairy product consumption.

So basically, you jump from the propaganda piece 'Forks over Knives' to the propaganda site PCRM to try and prove your point?!?