MelBrooks
my post was completely ignored, meanies
my post was completely ignored, meaniesrice farmer
Regarding the taste issue with almond milk, it's just that our palates have been degraded by the ubiquitous refined sugars.
DeletedUser16008
No its just that i dont like it
Hellstromm
/me continues to ignore the njub
Aye Rice Farmer, and there's more:
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/28/health/la-he-dietary-guidelines-reaction-20100628
http://harvardmagazine.com/2007/05/modern-milk.html
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/2006/12.07/11-dairy.html
It is, yet again, confirmed. A diet that includes large quantities of dairy (standard fair for most of you dairy lovers) significantly increases the risk of prostate & testicular cancer and indications are it also increases the risk of uterine, ovarian & breast cancer.
Also, hormones produced by the cows in modern dairy is rife with bad things, not even including the antibiotics and injected hormones that are transferred to the end product (cow's milk).
Evidence clearly shows it dramatically increases estrogen levels and growth hormones (dairy is responsible for 60 to 80% of estrogen consumed, which would account for Victor's man-boobs). So while it affirms the old saying of, "milk will help your body grow," it's not a good thing to artificially induce such, nor will it necessarily encourage proper proportions (heart, lung, liver and other core organs are more likely to grow disproportionately and in advance of other organs, or the body as a whole, due to artificial introduction of hormones to the himan body).
These are based on some of the more recent, and statistically viable, reports out there. On the issue of soy, it has a lot of good things about it, but also a lot of not good things. How the soy is processed determines whether it's good for you or largely problematic, so until there are regulations in place to ensure proper and consistent labeling of soy products, I will avoid it, just as much as I'm already forced to avoid dairy products.
However, almond-based products are consistently hitting high notes. At this present stage, with the studies available on almonds, it's no wonder dairy producers are trying to associate them with the pitfalls of soy. But, it's a faux association (like trying to infer that low-in-mercury fish is the same as mass-produced red meat), and it's one easily discredited.
DeletedUser16008
OK this is getting silly, we are back to the large quantity of dairy products consumed. Is this directly linked to the fact that your American and can't imagine a place where dairy products are consumed at a normal level like everything else ? Milk does not increase your appetite as alluded by HS and is ridiculous to suggest so.
Everything in moderation is obvious, as my 182 kilo boobless ( at the moment )frame will attest. Almond products are basically a luxury product your obviously a champion which is cool .... however I will say that like many things it will never come close to being as useful or available as the original.... its nuts to think it would. Try getting your Almond stuff once the SHTF there youll be lucky to find it even being produced. Sorry but its a fad and a luxury like so much, it makes no practical, sustainable, logical sense to make milk from nuts.
I like red meat, I like fish, I like milk, in fact I like a whole lot of food. what I don't like is people keep telling me what i should or shouldn't eat. When i wish to I'll eat whatever I like and I'm sensible enough not to pig on anything bad too much... I only live once and im not about to become consumed by either fat blubberyness nor food freaks. I can decide for myself thanks and so can most of the world, it's only in certain places the fatcells outweigh the braincells.
Everything in moderation is obvious, as my 182 kilo boobless ( at the moment )frame will attest. Almond products are basically a luxury product your obviously a champion which is cool .... however I will say that like many things it will never come close to being as useful or available as the original.... its nuts to think it would. Try getting your Almond stuff once the SHTF there youll be lucky to find it even being produced. Sorry but its a fad and a luxury like so much, it makes no practical, sustainable, logical sense to make milk from nuts.
I like red meat, I like fish, I like milk, in fact I like a whole lot of food. what I don't like is people keep telling me what i should or shouldn't eat. When i wish to I'll eat whatever I like and I'm sensible enough not to pig on anything bad too much... I only live once and im not about to become consumed by either fat blubberyness nor food freaks. I can decide for myself thanks and so can most of the world, it's only in certain places the fatcells outweigh the braincells.
Hellstromm
Hehe, i never "alluded to" milk increasing appetite. Never said it once.
As to your argument that almond production is unsustainable or inefficient, exactly the opposite. It's the dairy industry that is both unsustainable and grossly inefficient, due to the production of the greenhouse gas, methane (300 liters per cow, per day --- over 100,000 liters of methane a year mutiplied by 2 billion cows) and due to the amount of grains it eats a day to produce milk (32,000 lbs of grain, and over 6000 gallons of fresh drinking water a year, per cow, to produce 2300 gallons of unprocessed milk a year --- and that's for the far more efficient hormone infused cows). And then there's the toxic waste of cow patties, wee.
Also, I already indicated that the average dairy consumers in developed countries eat/drink large quantities of dairy products, more than the respective peer-reviewed study indicates. So this argument of "everything in moderation" hits a rather troubling dose of reality.
Finally, while you may argue that you can eat whatever you want, nobody is saying otherwise. You want to slowly, inexorably, damage your system, you're entitled. So are smokers allowed to smoke tobacco. But when the evidence is presented, and you decide to puff on that glass of cow's milk in defiance, don't bother to whine later when consequences arise.
As to your argument that almond production is unsustainable or inefficient, exactly the opposite. It's the dairy industry that is both unsustainable and grossly inefficient, due to the production of the greenhouse gas, methane (300 liters per cow, per day --- over 100,000 liters of methane a year mutiplied by 2 billion cows) and due to the amount of grains it eats a day to produce milk (32,000 lbs of grain, and over 6000 gallons of fresh drinking water a year, per cow, to produce 2300 gallons of unprocessed milk a year --- and that's for the far more efficient hormone infused cows). And then there's the toxic waste of cow patties, wee.
Also, I already indicated that the average dairy consumers in developed countries eat/drink large quantities of dairy products, more than the respective peer-reviewed study indicates. So this argument of "everything in moderation" hits a rather troubling dose of reality.
Finally, while you may argue that you can eat whatever you want, nobody is saying otherwise. You want to slowly, inexorably, damage your system, you're entitled. So are smokers allowed to smoke tobacco. But when the evidence is presented, and you decide to puff on that glass of cow's milk in defiance, don't bother to whine later when consequences arise.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser16008
Greenhouse gas, poo etc ??
mate we once had a world full of dinosaurs all farting and crapping for millions of years, don't try to tell me animals are bad for the environment for gods sake, its BS compared to what humanity does.I refute that the average dairy consumers in developed countries eat/drink large quantities of dairy products.
The west has a much better diet choice than most others for all that the doomongers and scaremongers will say otherwise. Ideology is a luxury 99% cannot afford in the real world. I shall live as healthy a life as I deem worthwhile compromising on. For me avoiding something totally has to have a pretty big payoff, as I said I live only once, will not be cowed or scared into what i deem as reducing my experience and flexibility of life re food or anything else, nor do I like the way people crusade these topics to ram them down anothers throat.
I choose to drink, i know the story, I choose to smoke ? my choice, I choose to eat dairy products same thing although to even mention in the same sentence all three is silly as they dont compare on the dangers imo.
As for damaging my system ? I have no problems so far and i'll deal with any as they arise without worrying about it nor blaming anyone else when/if I do. I have known too many people that have died living lives avoiding this or that only to have something happen anyway.... Im a fatalist, being prudent and making decisions is all very well but time is short here on Earth when your times up its up, until then i'll make my own informed decisions and live with the consequences without being scared by some papers on something ive lived with as part of my diet for decades with no problems whatsoever.
DeletedUser16628
This has been a entertaining argument.Firsthand experience vs scientific facts or at least facts consistent to help sell a book.MORE,MORE MORE.
rice farmer
Victor, you'll be fine as long as you're fully informed. The gold standard is locally-produced, non-GMO, organic food. In this video, the speaker states that(I'm just paraphrasing from memory) for the past 2.5 million years, humans consumed nutrients at a level 2 to 10 times the modern day %DV. Nowadays, most people just eat stuff out of a box.
Hellstromm
Umm, Rice, there are a lot of smokers out there that are full-informed about cigarettes. You think they'll be fine?
DeletedUser16008
Interesting Video, made me smile because I avoid processed food/meals as much as possible and believe very strongly in fresh food, always have plus its far far cheaper,I dont even remember the last TV dinner I had.
HS theres a difference between being informed and making a personal choice and not having a clue or being lied to.
Eli Makepeace
No dinosaurs were ruminants. Nor did grass exist for them to eat.Greenhouse gas, poo etc ??
If you don't compare like-for-like you will find that your reasoning is invalid.
I don't recall anyone asserting that animals were bad for the environment. However, humans are animals. Therefore, according to you, humans are not bad for the environment. It follows that if humans unleash a nuclear war then that cannot be bad for the environment. In the broadest sense it is impossible to harm the environment at all - merely to reconfigure it in a way that does not support human life. But, you know, I think that's what people mean by saying it's 'bad' - 'bad' for us.
DeletedUser16008
Ok Eli the age of mammals then long before humans arrived, would that suffice ? whatever your just picking on specific words but actually seeing as you brought it up.
Until the discovery of the grass laden coprolites, it was thought that grass evolved only after the dinosaurs. We now know that is not true.
Theory dumped
The 65-67 million-year-old dung fossils, or coprolites, are thought to have been made by so-called titanosaur sauropods; large, vegetarian dinosaurs.
Fossil grass phytoliths were found in the dinosaur dung
"It's difficult to tell how widespread [grass grazing] was," Ms Strömberg told the BBC News website, "Dinosaurs seem to have been indiscriminate feeders."
The study also sheds new light on the evolution of grass. Grasses are thought to have undergone a major diversification and geographic proliferation during the so-called Cenozoic, after the dinosaurs had gone extinct.
But the researchers found at least five different types of grass in the droppings.
This suggests grasses had already undergone substantial diversification in the Late Cretaceous, when the giant beasts still walked the Earth.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4443696.stm
http://www.literalgenesis.org/home/...volution-theory&catid=2:paleontology&Itemid=3
65 millions years is a lot of farts and poo.....Keep up with the times Eli
Until the discovery of the grass laden coprolites, it was thought that grass evolved only after the dinosaurs. We now know that is not true.
Theory dumped
The 65-67 million-year-old dung fossils, or coprolites, are thought to have been made by so-called titanosaur sauropods; large, vegetarian dinosaurs.
Fossil grass phytoliths were found in the dinosaur dung
"It's difficult to tell how widespread [grass grazing] was," Ms Strömberg told the BBC News website, "Dinosaurs seem to have been indiscriminate feeders."
The study also sheds new light on the evolution of grass. Grasses are thought to have undergone a major diversification and geographic proliferation during the so-called Cenozoic, after the dinosaurs had gone extinct.
But the researchers found at least five different types of grass in the droppings.
This suggests grasses had already undergone substantial diversification in the Late Cretaceous, when the giant beasts still walked the Earth.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4443696.stm
http://www.literalgenesis.org/home/...volution-theory&catid=2:paleontology&Itemid=3
65 millions years is a lot of farts and poo.....Keep up with the times Eli
Hellstromm
Hehe, would you like to put some of that effort into examining the atmosphere of those times Victor? I think by doing so you'll see the fallacy of your arguments.
DeletedUser16008
I didnt come up with an argument Eli did all im doing is posting scientific based information that suggests atmosphere or not 5 types of grass were indeed found.
Now I understand thats a sticker for all the white paper theories with hard evidence becoming available but i didn't find it, scientists did.
Oh and don't ask me what exactly constitutes "grass"............... i don't care
Now I understand thats a sticker for all the white paper theories with hard evidence becoming available but i didn't find it, scientists did.
Oh and don't ask me what exactly constitutes "grass"............... i don't care
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser9470
agreed
we have 2 types of people here:
the "milk is delicious" people and the "im allergic to everything and thus jealous of those who can drink milk so ill do everything to ruin it for them as well" people.
as far as i know, no casualties have been directly related to the consumption of milk other than allergic(jealous) people to it, but in this case who cares?
so really its a debate that isnt one.
is milk good for you?
define "good"
if good means nourishing then yes it is.
if good means kills allergic people then, again, yes it is.
if good means gets noobs to talk crap about something they have no idea about then no.
but if we didnt have inane debates like this, noobs would feel the need to contribute their lack of intelligence on posts that matter.
rice farmer
Define casualties. And please provide evidence that all lactose-intolerant persons wish they could drink this nectar of the gods milk.
Hellstromm
Trying to make it easier for yourself to count?
-Neo-, you utterly, and repeatedly, failed to provide evidence in support on "any" of your claims and as well failed to provide contra-evidence to that which has already been provided regarding the health concerns and dangers of processed, organic, and raw cow's milk. Insulting the community (or respective individuals that pwned you in this debate) on your way out the door (banned again I see), doesn't win you a blue ribbon. It just makes you look petty.
footshot
i would still like to know what was going thru the mind of the first human who saw a bloody great Auroch
And turned to his pal [ssat next to him in the bush - for comic effect]
and said "see that bloody great thing with the big horns and the dangly bit ,...i,m gonna squeeze one of them and drink what comes out"
And turned to his pal [ssat next to him in the bush - for comic effect]
and said "see that bloody great thing with the big horns and the dangly bit ,...i,m gonna squeeze one of them and drink what comes out"