Should I switch to almond milk ?

I was curious about the calorie differences, and googled to find out that unsweetened nut milks can be as low as 30 calories per cup , compared to 150 calories for whole cow milk. https://www.popsugar.com/fitness/Calories-Different-Types-Milk-9221413

Like the OP, I also do not like the flavor of milk, and the nut milks don't impress my taste buds at all.

Whole milk from grass fed cows makes the absolute yummiest yogurt. That's the only use I have for milk. well, except for cheese and ice cream.

sullus wrote: »

lemurcat2 wrote: »

just_Tomek wrote: »

tinkerbellang83 wrote: »

aokoye wrote: »

just_Tomek wrote: »

Most excellent. The 0% feels and tastes like regular 2% milk.

1cup serving = 80cal

Per Serving Protein Sugar Calcium Lactose

fairlife® ultra-filtered fat free milk
13g 6g 380mg No

regular milk
8g 12g 276mg Yes

almond milk
1g 7g 451mg No

And therein lies just one of the problems for me. You would not have been able to get five year old me to drink that (and would have wasted money in the process) and my current 32 year old self is also not going to drink it. I think the taste of milk is gross and that's ok. People are allowed to not like milk in the same way people are allowed to not like the taste of raisins, mayonnaise, oysters, mushrooms, or anything else.

Including the OP

I guess @Just_tomek just really likes Milk

I do like milk and I also like almond / cashew milk beverages
My point here was that it should not be called milk. Thats all.

But as pointed out it is called almond milk and has been for a long time. I wish people wouldn't say "impactful," but they do, the battle is lost, there's no point in tilting at windmills. Some poster around here was claiming that greek yogurt should be used only for yogurts from Greece, but that's not the case either (and will remain not the case for those of us not in the EU, anyway).

(In truth I'm a descriptionist, not a prescriptionist anyway, but I have certain pet peeves.)

Webster's dictionary agrees it is milk. It's not the primary, but def 1b(2) and 2 says its milk:
milk noun

\ ˈmilk \
Definition of milk (Entry 1 of 4)
1a: a fluid secreted by the mammary glands of females for the nourishment of their young
b(1): milk from an animal and especially a cow used as food by people
(2): a food product produced from seeds or fruit that resembles and is used similarly to cow's milk
coconut milk
soy milk
2: a liquid resembling milk in appearance: such as
a: the latex of a plant
b: the contents of an unripe kernel of grain
3: LACTATION cows in milk

But then again these are the same people that define literally as: 2: in effect : VIRTUALLY —used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible.

and this .. ugh:

ir·​re·​gard·​less | \ ˌir-i-ˈgärd-ləs \
Definition of irregardless
nonstandard
: REGARDLESS
I told them that irregardless of what you read in books, they's some members of the theatrical profession that occasionally visits the place where they sleep.

I believe this is because Webster's is reporting how people actually use our language. Eventually, any dictionary that ignores how people really speak and write is going to find itself irrelevant.

janejellyroll wrote: »

sullus wrote: »

lemurcat2 wrote: »

just_Tomek wrote: »

tinkerbellang83 wrote: »

aokoye wrote: »

just_Tomek wrote: »

Most excellent. The 0% feels and tastes like regular 2% milk.

1cup serving = 80cal

Per Serving Protein Sugar Calcium Lactose

fairlife® ultra-filtered fat free milk
13g 6g 380mg No

regular milk
8g 12g 276mg Yes

almond milk
1g 7g 451mg No

And therein lies just one of the problems for me. You would not have been able to get five year old me to drink that (and would have wasted money in the process) and my current 32 year old self is also not going to drink it. I think the taste of milk is gross and that's ok. People are allowed to not like milk in the same way people are allowed to not like the taste of raisins, mayonnaise, oysters, mushrooms, or anything else.

Including the OP

I guess @Just_tomek just really likes Milk

I do like milk and I also like almond / cashew milk beverages
My point here was that it should not be called milk. Thats all.

But as pointed out it is called almond milk and has been for a long time. I wish people wouldn't say "impactful," but they do, the battle is lost, there's no point in tilting at windmills. Some poster around here was claiming that greek yogurt should be used only for yogurts from Greece, but that's not the case either (and will remain not the case for those of us not in the EU, anyway).

(In truth I'm a descriptionist, not a prescriptionist anyway, but I have certain pet peeves.)

Webster's dictionary agrees it is milk. It's not the primary, but def 1b(2) and 2 says its milk:
milk noun

\ ˈmilk \
Definition of milk (Entry 1 of 4)
1a: a fluid secreted by the mammary glands of females for the nourishment of their young
b(1): milk from an animal and especially a cow used as food by people
(2): a food product produced from seeds or fruit that resembles and is used similarly to cow's milk
coconut milk
soy milk
2: a liquid resembling milk in appearance: such as
a: the latex of a plant
b: the contents of an unripe kernel of grain
3: LACTATION cows in milk

But then again these are the same people that define literally as: 2: in effect : VIRTUALLY —used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible.

and this .. ugh:

ir·​re·​gard·​less | \ ˌir-i-ˈgärd-ləs \
Definition of irregardless
nonstandard
: REGARDLESS
I told them that irregardless of what you read in books, they's some members of the theatrical profession that occasionally visits the place where they sleep.

I believe this is because Webster's is reporting how people actually use our language. Eventually, any dictionary that ignores how people really speak and write is going to find itself irrelevant.

Yes, dictionaries are typically descriptivist.

sullus wrote: »

lemurcat2 wrote: »

just_Tomek wrote: »

tinkerbellang83 wrote: »

aokoye wrote: »

just_Tomek wrote: »

Most excellent. The 0% feels and tastes like regular 2% milk.

1cup serving = 80cal

Per Serving Protein Sugar Calcium Lactose

fairlife® ultra-filtered fat free milk
13g 6g 380mg No

regular milk
8g 12g 276mg Yes

almond milk
1g 7g 451mg No

And therein lies just one of the problems for me. You would not have been able to get five year old me to drink that (and would have wasted money in the process) and my current 32 year old self is also not going to drink it. I think the taste of milk is gross and that's ok. People are allowed to not like milk in the same way people are allowed to not like the taste of raisins, mayonnaise, oysters, mushrooms, or anything else.

Including the OP

I guess @Just_tomek just really likes Milk

I do like milk and I also like almond / cashew milk beverages
My point here was that it should not be called milk. Thats all.

But as pointed out it is called almond milk and has been for a long time. I wish people wouldn't say "impactful," but they do, the battle is lost, there's no point in tilting at windmills. Some poster around here was claiming that greek yogurt should be used only for yogurts from Greece, but that's not the case either (and will remain not the case for those of us not in the EU, anyway).

(In truth I'm a descriptionist, not a prescriptionist anyway, but I have certain pet peeves.)

Webster's dictionary agrees it is milk. It's not the primary, but def 1b(2) and 2 says its milk:
milk noun

\ ˈmilk \
Definition of milk (Entry 1 of 4)
1a: a fluid secreted by the mammary glands of females for the nourishment of their young
b(1): milk from an animal and especially a cow used as food by people
(2): a food product produced from seeds or fruit that resembles and is used similarly to cow's milk
coconut milk
soy milk
2: a liquid resembling milk in appearance: such as
a: the latex of a plant
b: the contents of an unripe kernel of grain
3: LACTATION cows in milk

But then again these are the same people that define literally as: 2: in effect : VIRTUALLY —used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible.

and this .. ugh:

ir·​re·​gard·​less | \ ˌir-i-ˈgärd-ləs \
Definition of irregardless
nonstandard
: REGARDLESS
I told them that irregardless of what you read in books, they's some members of the theatrical profession that occasionally visits the place where they sleep.

Literally as figuratively is actually pretty longstanding (much like almond milk).

https://slate.com/human-interest/2005/11/the-trouble-with-literally.html

"As is often the case, though, such “abuses” have a long and esteemed history in English. Tom Sawyer wasn’t turning somersaults on piles of money when Twain described him as “literally rolling in wealth,” nor was Jay Gatsby shining when Fitzgerald wrote that “he literally glowed,” nor were Bach and Beethoven squeezed into a fedora when Joyce wrote in Ulysses that a Mozart piece was “the acme of first class music as such, literally knocking everything else into a cocked hat.” Such examples are easily come by, even in the works of the authors we are often told to emulate....

By the late 17th century...literally was being used as an intensifier for true statements. The Oxford English Dictionary cites Dryden and Pope for this sense; Jane Austen, in Sanditon, wrote of a stormy night that, “We had been literally rocked in our bed.” In these examples, literally is used for the sake of emphasis alone.

Eventually, though, literally began to be used to intensify statements that were themselves figurative or metaphorical. The earliest examples I know of are from the late 18th century, and though there are examples throughout the 19th century—often in prominent works; to my earlier examples could be added choice quotations from James Fenimore Cooper, Thackeray, Dickens, and Thoreau, among many others—no one seems to have objected to the usage until the early 20th century....

Why, though, did this usage of literally suddenly come under such fire? It is not the first, nor will it be the last, instance of a word that is used in a seemingly contradictory way. There are many such words, and they arise through various means. Called “Janus words,” “contranyms,” or “auto-antonyms,” they include cleave (“to stick to” and “to split apart”), dust (“to remove dust from” and “to sprinkle dust upon”), moot (“able to be discussed; arguable” and “purely theoretical”) and peruse and scan (each meaning both “to read closely” and “to glance at hastily; skim”). Usage writers often criticize such words as potentially confusing and usually single out one of the meanings as “wrong,” the “right” meaning being the older one, or the one closer to the word’s etymological meaning, or the one more frequent when 18th-century grammarians began to examine language systematically....."

(I just find this an interesting topic.)

lynn_glenmont wrote: »

lemurcat2 wrote: »

kshama2001 wrote: »

acpgee wrote: »

Is anyone concerned that almond milk is meant to be worse for the environment than cow's milk?

acpgee wrote: »

https://sustainability.ucsf.edu/1.713
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/shortcuts/2015/oct/21/almond-milk-quite-good-for-you-very-bad-for-the-planet

While almond growing in California is extremely water intensive and thus bad for the planet; cow's milk worse.

From your link:

(this isn’t to say cow’s milk, which takes about 100 litres of water to produce 100ml of milk, is more environmentally friendly...

***

See also: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46654042

...Almond milk requires more water to produce than soy or oat milk. A single glass requires 74 litres (130 pints of water) - more than a typical shower. Rice milk is also comparatively thirsty, requiring 54 litres of water per glass.

However, it's worth noting that both almond and rice milk still require less water to produce than the typical glass of dairy milk.

The problem with this type of analysis is that almond milk is mostly produced in CA, and apparently takes a toll on honeybees, whereas cow's milk can be easily sourced locally and unlike CA, where I live has no drought problem (if anything, the opposite).

It's also why I prefer nut milks that actually include the nuts (ideally homemade) -- although that means they are not low cal.

But there are drawbacks with everything we eat, so I don't think it's wrong to prefer the low cal store-bought almond milk.

As noted before I don't really use milk, other than homemade cashew milk in a smoothie. I do like other forms of dairy, like cottage cheese, greek yogurt, and (more indulgently) ice cream and cheese in general.

I was curious about the connection (my first thought was do almond trees displace other crops that honey bees rely on?) and found articles indicating that almond trees actually depend on pollinators like honey bees, but that fungicides sprayed on the trees appear to be harming the bees. This seems like a problem that the almond growers will be forced to solve (presumably by finding ways to combat fungi that are less harmful to honey bees), if they are depending on bees to pollinate their crops.

There are other issues for bees as well - beekeepers often bring in their bees from out-of-state to pollinate almond trees. The pay is quite good, and beekeepers in the US are suffering due to the growing presence of fake honey imported from other countries pricing down the market and making it difficult for beekeepers to produce honey at a price people will pay. So the almond money is good, but many bees die en route as transporting bees from, say, Montana to California, is dangerous for them! They can die from cold, shock, or disease en route or in the fields. So, unfortunately, it's not only the pesticides that can make almonds a lose-lose deal for beekepers.

I love this video.

(I don't know how to embed but it's Weird Al Yankovic, Word Crimes.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=8Gv0H-vPoDc

paperpudding wrote: »

AnnPT77 wrote: »

This might be a fun point to inject my biased (and partly tongue in cheek) contention that language peevery, rather than being about clear communication, is primarily a class marker . . .

. . . not upper class: Aspirational class.

Yes I often think that.

When we occasionally get the grammar police citing examples like Family visiting for tea, , Lets eat Grandma - punctuation matters!!!!!
It should be Lets eat, Grandma

Well, yes, it should - but what storm in a teacup nonsense, nobody reading that sentence would have any doubt what it meant, comma or no comma.


Sorry, returning to milk debate.......

I am sure you mean, "Let's eat, Grandma."

sullus wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

sullus wrote: »

lemurcat2 wrote: »

just_Tomek wrote: »

tinkerbellang83 wrote: »

aokoye wrote: »

just_Tomek wrote: »

Most excellent. The 0% feels and tastes like regular 2% milk.

1cup serving = 80cal

Per Serving Protein Sugar Calcium Lactose

fairlife® ultra-filtered fat free milk
13g 6g 380mg No

regular milk
8g 12g 276mg Yes

almond milk
1g 7g 451mg No

And therein lies just one of the problems for me. You would not have been able to get five year old me to drink that (and would have wasted money in the process) and my current 32 year old self is also not going to drink it. I think the taste of milk is gross and that's ok. People are allowed to not like milk in the same way people are allowed to not like the taste of raisins, mayonnaise, oysters, mushrooms, or anything else.

Including the OP

I guess @Just_tomek just really likes Milk

I do like milk and I also like almond / cashew milk beverages
My point here was that it should not be called milk. Thats all.

But as pointed out it is called almond milk and has been for a long time. I wish people wouldn't say "impactful," but they do, the battle is lost, there's no point in tilting at windmills. Some poster around here was claiming that greek yogurt should be used only for yogurts from Greece, but that's not the case either (and will remain not the case for those of us not in the EU, anyway).

(In truth I'm a descriptionist, not a prescriptionist anyway, but I have certain pet peeves.)

Webster's dictionary agrees it is milk. It's not the primary, but def 1b(2) and 2 says its milk:
milk noun

\ ˈmilk \
Definition of milk (Entry 1 of 4)
1a: a fluid secreted by the mammary glands of females for the nourishment of their young
b(1): milk from an animal and especially a cow used as food by people
(2): a food product produced from seeds or fruit that resembles and is used similarly to cow's milk
coconut milk
soy milk
2: a liquid resembling milk in appearance: such as
a: the latex of a plant
b: the contents of an unripe kernel of grain
3: LACTATION cows in milk

But then again these are the same people that define literally as: 2: in effect : VIRTUALLY —used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible.

and this .. ugh:

ir·​re·​gard·​less | \ ˌir-i-ˈgärd-ləs \
Definition of irregardless
nonstandard
: REGARDLESS
I told them that irregardless of what you read in books, they's some members of the theatrical profession that occasionally visits the place where they sleep.

I believe this is because Webster's is reporting how people actually use our language. Eventually, any dictionary that ignores how people really speak and write is going to find itself irrelevant.

I know. But I think that irregardless of how the dictionary defines it it's literally a crime to use those 2 words that way.

There is so much going on in this post, so much going on.

extra_medium wrote: »

Theoldguy1 wrote: »

hesn92 wrote: »

It's a lot lower in calories. I have been meaning to get it for my oatmeal because of that but I love milk so much It depends what you use milk for. If it's just to eat cereal or oatmeal or things like that it's fine but I would not drink a glass of almond milk, for example.

Lower in calories, but also lower in nutritional value.

Need to balance within the context of overall diet. 1% milk gives a big protein bang for the calories as an example.

It's better than none, but I wouldn't call it "big." for me the 8 grams or so isn't worth the 100+ extra calories over unsweetened almond or cashew

Not quite sure on your math, but oh well.

1% milk, 8g protein 100 calories



Unsweetened almond milk, 1gm protein 30 calories




7 more grams protein for 70 calories.

astridtheviking wrote: »

lynn_glenmont wrote: »

lemurcat2 wrote: »

kshama2001 wrote: »

acpgee wrote: »

Is anyone concerned that almond milk is meant to be worse for the environment than cow's milk?

acpgee wrote: »

https://sustainability.ucsf.edu/1.713
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/shortcuts/2015/oct/21/almond-milk-quite-good-for-you-very-bad-for-the-planet

While almond growing in California is extremely water intensive and thus bad for the planet; cow's milk worse.

From your link:

(this isn’t to say cow’s milk, which takes about 100 litres of water to produce 100ml of milk, is more environmentally friendly...

***

See also: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46654042

...Almond milk requires more water to produce than soy or oat milk. A single glass requires 74 litres (130 pints of water) - more than a typical shower. Rice milk is also comparatively thirsty, requiring 54 litres of water per glass.

However, it's worth noting that both almond and rice milk still require less water to produce than the typical glass of dairy milk.

The problem with this type of analysis is that almond milk is mostly produced in CA, and apparently takes a toll on honeybees, whereas cow's milk can be easily sourced locally and unlike CA, where I live has no drought problem (if anything, the opposite).

It's also why I prefer nut milks that actually include the nuts (ideally homemade) -- although that means they are not low cal.

But there are drawbacks with everything we eat, so I don't think it's wrong to prefer the low cal store-bought almond milk.

As noted before I don't really use milk, other than homemade cashew milk in a smoothie. I do like other forms of dairy, like cottage cheese, greek yogurt, and (more indulgently) ice cream and cheese in general.

I was curious about the connection (my first thought was do almond trees displace other crops that honey bees rely on?) and found articles indicating that almond trees actually depend on pollinators like honey bees, but that fungicides sprayed on the trees appear to be harming the bees. This seems like a problem that the almond growers will be forced to solve (presumably by finding ways to combat fungi that are less harmful to honey bees), if they are depending on bees to pollinate their crops.

There are other issues for bees as well - beekeepers often bring in their bees from out-of-state to pollinate almond trees. The pay is quite good, and beekeepers in the US are suffering due to the growing presence of fake honey imported from other countries pricing down the market and making it difficult for beekeepers to produce honey at a price people will pay. So the almond money is good, but many bees die en route as transporting bees from, say, Montana to California, is dangerous for them! They can die from cold, shock, or disease en route or in the fields. So, unfortunately, it's not only the pesticides that can make almonds a lose-lose deal for beekepers.

If it's a lose-lose deal for them, they should stop doing it.