2 ms·
> while apparently for particular purposes non-dairy milks are starting out at a disadvantage even if they have some health benefits in other ways It's almost
by Swizec 9y ago
> while apparently for particular purposes non-dairy milks are starting out at a disadvantage even if they have some health benefits in other ways
It's almost like alternative milks have around 30 calories per cup and real milk has 160 calories. That's a huge difference because you're likely to give your child "a glass of milk", not ask them to drink 5 glasses because the alt milk has basically no nutritional value.
Source: my gf swears by alt milks so I have a fridge full of them. I borrow them sometimes when I run out of real milk.
PS: Yes I'm comparing to "full" fat 3.5% milk. Not that watered down stuff that seems to be super popular for some reason. And while I'd love to use real full fat milk, 3.5% is the most I have easy access to in the absence of owning a cow.
- maxerickson 9y agoThe sweetened versions have more calories. (for the ones that are 30 calories/cup unsweetened, something like 60 calories per cup). Cows milk also has quite a lot more protein than most alternative milks.
- derefr 9y ago> And while I'd love to use real full fat milk, 3.5% is the most I have easy access to in the absence of owning a cow. You could add cream to your milk.
- schoen 9y agoIt varies quite a bit: Silk Unsweetened Almondmilk is 30 kcal/cup, while their Unsweetened Soymilk is 80 kcal/cup (still less than dairy milk, but by a factor of 2 instead of over 5). As maxerickson pointed out, sweetened ones also have more calories, but that's not necessarily a great nutritional improvement (e.g., Silk Chocolate Soymilk is 120 kcal/cup, with a whole bunch of refined sugar in there). I think you can choose a nutrition profile quite a bit closer to dairy milk in many respects if you specifically want to, but it's going to depend on how your particular product was processed, sweetened, and fortified.