6 ms·

It's been interesting watching the reactionary rally against dairy over the last 10 years. Watching laypeople with zero scientific background write editorials o

It's been interesting watching the reactionary rally against dairy over the last 10 years. Watching laypeople with zero scientific background write editorials on nutrition-adjacent topics is always a great workout of patience. One of the more bewildering things I see is comparison of mammalian milks to plant milks... despite the two not being even remotely comparable. Plant 'milks' are just going through a lot of effort to take generally decent foodstuff (oats, nuts, etc.) and watering them down, massively reducing the nutritional density and content. The macro and micro content of things like oat milk, cashew milk, and so on are next to water because that's basically what they are. They're made by leeching a tiny amount of these legumes and grains into water, often artificially fortified with one or two vitamins. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to compare the nutritional profile of cashews with that of cashew milk and that of cows milk. > But that talking point masks the reality that milk is only so convenient and affordable because the USDA, with taxpayer dollars, has made it so through intensive, sustained investments. This is a really weird assertion to make when dairy has been a massively important staple of advanced societies for thousands of years, and continues to be in places like rural India, Turkey, Central Asia, and more. It's also not necessarily off-base, but that's because it holds true for all foodstuffs in the modern US. Because of how large our societies have gotten, the affordability of goods is directly tied to intentional prioritization of their supply chains by the organizational arm of society (government.)

reducesuffering 2y ago
Ya, and with things like oat milk, most don't even realize they're consuming a cup of processed seed oil (imagine ranch/mayo) in that carton. > massively important staple of advanced societies for thousands of years, and continues to be in places like rural India, Turkey, Central Asia, and more. I also find it interesting how well milk consumption correlates with increased height.[0] All the tallest countries (Montenegro, Netherlands, Sweden) have the highest milk consumption levels. Everyone using protein powder to bulk up for fitness is using milk-based whey protein. We know that malnutrition affects height. Is there any other food or activity that correlates with height as much as milk consumption? [0] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Correlation-between-average-heights-and-per-capita-milk-consumption-kg-person-yr-in-86_fig3_371602182 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Correlation-between-aver...
- kelipso 2y ago
  Around 30% by calories of seed oil in many oat milks. Was so surprised when I discovered this. It's in the ingredients list but they never even hint at this anywhere else.
  - mirror_neuron 2y ago
    Count me among those that didn’t realize how much seed oil is used. But is that bad? I don’t have an axe to grind against cow’s milk, but I do have trouble digesting it (and besides, I like the way oat milk tastes). Do I need to be worried about the fact that there’s a lot of seed oil in it?
    - hooverd 2y ago
      Depends on who you ask. Maybe seed oil is the devil and should only be eating beef and butter for health.
    - reducesuffering 2y ago
      Nutrition science is anything but conclusive, however there is some preliminary research indicating seed oils may not be healthy and contribute to obesity. Why are condiments like ranch and mayonnaise unhealthy? Because they're almost entirely seed oils. There is oat milk without any added oils, including Oatly, but you have to specifically look for that version, they're not always easy to find. And it will taste thinner without any fatty component that cows milk has.
    - blargey 2y ago
      "Seed oil" is a broad category, but the most popular (cheap) seed oils would also fall under "ultraprocessed foods". Canola oil in particular is ever-present in the US, and unlike other refined plant oils, requires the ultraprocessing to be considered fit for human consumption (you'll never see extra-virgin canola oil on a grocery shelf). Debates about its safety aside, I don't feel the need to give it the benefit of the doubt when I could just eat something that doesn't contain it, and that something would likely be healthier for many other reasons.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> when dairy has been a massively important staple of advanced societies for thousands of years “Approximately 65 percent of the human population has a reduced ability to digest lactose after infancy. Lactase nonpersistence is most prevalent in people of East Asian descent, with 70 to 100 percent of people affected in these communities. Lactase nonpersistence is also very common in people of West African, Arab, Jewish, Greek, and Italian descent” [1]. Digesting cow’s milk relies on a new gene (<10,000 years old) that evolved in Northern Europe, East Africa and the Middle East [2]. Most adults—65 to 90%—have some degree of lactose intolerance. It’s simply untrue that dairy has been a staple of even a plurality of advanced civilisations over history. [1] https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/condition/lactose-intolerance/#frequency https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/condition/lactose-intoleran... [2] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/lactose-tolerance-and-human-evolution-56187902/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/lactose-toleranc...
- dualogy 2y ago
  But the quoted poster said "dairy", not milk. Lots of dairy has little to no lactose, from butter to cream-cheeses to indeed cream itself (clotted, double, or even the liquid 30% fat "whipping cream") to yogurts / kefirs, and pretty much all kinds of cheeses too... I can't handle milk either, or anything high-lactose. The above things, though, no prob. I'd guess most of the "lactose-intolerant" will do alright with moderate (non-binge) amounts of such low- (but not no-) lactose foods. Variations of all those are indeed much-loved staples all over the world, whether of the cow or the goat or the sheep (or gazelle? caribou? ruminant species abound!) variety, depending on regional grazing conditions I guess.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - lenkite 2y ago
      How "biologically recently" are you talking about ? In India, milk has been there since the first domestication of cattle 8000 years ago. Ancient Indian civilization was built on milk. Not only was it drunk regularly but it was also turned into ghee.
racional 2y ago
Plant 'milks' are just going through a lot of effort to take generally decent foodstuff (oats, nuts, etc.) and watering them down, massively reducing the nutritional density and content. The macro and micro content of things like oat milk, cashew milk, and so on are next to water because that's basically what they are. People don't reach for plant milk (or butter) for the nutritive content; but rather for the texture and taste, which make other foods (smoothies, porridge), not to mention coffee / tea (for some), more palatable -- or in the case of baked goods (or pudding, ice cream, etc) they essentially are the texture of these foods. Thus expanding their range of what they can eat (and enjoy). And to do so in a way not involving animal milk.
- johnnyjeans 2y ago
  And yet the rhetoric is not about the usage of dairy in its role as a garnish, it's about presenting plant milks as a genuine dietary alternative to mammalian milk. I don't find that it's the people who buy plant milk for their coffee to be the same people implying that milk's popularity was invented out of thin air by mad doctors of the post-renaissance.
m463 2y ago
> This is a really weird assertion to make The problem is the US government has propped up milk, just like it has propped up high fructose corn syrup. It has chosen winners artificially against market forces. Unfortunately some of its choices also affect the health and well being of the population (losing HFCS might not be bad?) The only decent reason I can find to do this is strategic domestic food independence (calorie wise) and prevention of some black swan famine.
- ein0p 2y ago
  One of those things is not at all like the other. HFCS isn’t good for anyone at all, under any circumstances.
  - m463 2y ago
    but it has been highly subsidized. Dairy has been subsidized less: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/58/United_States_farm_subsidies_%28source_Congressional_Budget_Office%29.svg/800px-United_States_farm_subsidies_%28source_Congressional_Budget_Office%29.svg.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/58/Un...
inkyoto 2y ago
> It's been interesting watching the reactionary rally against dairy over the last 10 years. Watching laypeople with zero scientific background write editorials on nutrition-adjacent topics is always a great workout of patience. > One of the more bewildering things I see is comparison of mammalian milks to plant milks […] It is a case of hypocrisy on both sides. You are correct in your observation that most plant «milks» are nutritionally poor substitutes for mammalian milks. «Milk» perhaps should not be used in this context, but it is an accepted convenience due to the concept of «milk» being well known and recognised. The base of such drinks is effectively a sediment obtained through grinding grains or nuts and fixed with a plant based thickening agent (e.g. tapioca starch or xantham gum) to prevent the grounds from separating from the water. Extra nutrients may be added (cheap maltodextrin as a sweetener or plant oils) and most of them do not increase a nutritional value of such a drink. Without descending into a debate discussing the merits (or the lack thereof) of the nutritional profile of the cow's milk, the story of it is convoluted at the very least. The nutritional profile of the cow's milk can vary wildly depending on what the cow was fed with, and grain fed cows and «free range» cows will produce will produce milk with a vastly different balance of fatty acids: – The former: «forcefully» increased Ω-6 (through the grain ingestion) and lower Ω-3 and monounsaturated fatty acids (due to most grains being poor in both) in the content; – The latter: balanced Ω-3 and monounsaturated fatty acids composition due to the lack of interference with the cow's biology. The actual balance is a tricky affair as it depends on how nutritionally rich is the soil that the grass has grown on and which the cow has grazed on. That is the first problem. Secondly, there is an issue of cows being tended to by veterinary professionals and farmers who inject antibiotics for the animal's wellbeing reason (the former) and add growth hormones to encourage faster cow's growth and milk producing readiness (the latter). Whilst the antibiotics are fairly quickly removed from the body (whilst at least temporarily disturbing the biological homeostasis), the hormones are particularly tricky as they have a propensity to stay in the body for a very long time, and they usually disturb the hormonal balance in the body. Hormonal therapy (in humans and in animals) is still not well understood and is an area of active research, hence why hormonal treatments are a sparely used medicine oftentimes laden with complications. Both types of substances, however, leech into the milk and end up in consumer's hands, which has been acknowledged as an issue and even resulted in actions of different governments around the world to put specific regulations into place. And since lactation is also a hormonal process, humans ingesting the mammalian milk have been receiving a steady supply of animal's own hormones that are exogenous to the human body and with largely unknown long term effects. We have certainly not developed horns, tails and udders by virtue of drinking milk, but the long terms effects have been questioned at least. Therefore, the nutritional composition of the industrially produced cow's milk today is complicated. The real issue is that both sides push their own respective agenda, oftentimes driven by questionable motives, aiming to win or gain a upper hand at any cost. > This is a really weird assertion to make when dairy has been a massively important staple of advanced societies for thousands of years, and continues to be in places like rural India, Turkey, Central Asia […] Goat/buffalo, sheep and camel milk, respectively, – for each named region and in limited amounts. Not even remotely comparable to the Western scale. Consuming camel milk in Central Asia specifically has been a historical necessity due to it being vast, too dry or too rugged for farming, therefore a quick fix for the malnourishment problem was required. It became the camel, an animal that dwelled in and was adapted for life in a harsh climate and did not require large pastures. Should there have been the lush greenery and an abundance of plants, the history of nutrition in Central Asia would have taken a different turn. Also, further down below you mention the milk consumption in China. China is big, the climate is different in different parts of China: northern China has long winters that are cold, dry, below freezing, and long summers that are hot and humid. Southern China, on other hand, is mostly subtropical and evergreen. Nutritional habits are also different in the north and in the south: wheat is used instead of rice in the north as rice requires a lot of water to grow, and wheat is virtually unheard of in the south and rice is ubiquitous. Even if the cow's milk is consumed in China, it would be predominantly in the north but not in the south where it is missing from the local dietary intake altogether. Having said that, I do not think it is correct to project that, based on the limited milk consumption in a few isolated parts of China, it was a commonplace in the past.
gehwartzen 2y ago
Milk and milk products with beneficial bacteria useful in digesting and tolerating said milk is what’s been around for millennia not the stuff we pick up at the grocery store. Even though we’ve been doing it for a long time it still feels like an odd thing for the human animal to do. If one exists I can imagine a creator yelling “you’re not humming correctly!”
euroderf 2y ago
> massively reducing the nutritional density and content Making faux anything out of cashews is criminal. The destruction of flavor counts too.
mattpallissard 2y ago
> This is a really weird assertion But not surprising, it is vox, and hit pieces are kind-of their schtick.

reducesuffering 2y ago

Ya, and with things like oat milk, most don't even realize they're consuming a cup of processed seed oil (imagine ranch/mayo) in that carton. > massively important staple of advanced societies for thousands of years, and continues to be in places like rural India, Turkey, Central Asia, and more. I also find it interesting how well milk consumption correlates with increased height.[0] All the tallest countries (Montenegro, Netherlands, Sweden) have the highest milk consumption levels. Everyone using protein powder to bulk up for fitness is using milk-based whey protein. We know that malnutrition affects height. Is there any other food or activity that correlates with height as much as milk consumption? [0] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Correlation-between-average-heights-and-per-capita-milk-consumption-kg-person-yr-in-86_fig3_371602182 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Correlation-between-aver...

kelipso 2y ago
Around 30% by calories of seed oil in many oat milks. Was so surprised when I discovered this. It's in the ingredients list but they never even hint at this anywhere else.
- mirror_neuron 2y ago
  Count me among those that didn’t realize how much seed oil is used. But is that bad? I don’t have an axe to grind against cow’s milk, but I do have trouble digesting it (and besides, I like the way oat milk tastes). Do I need to be worried about the fact that there’s a lot of seed oil in it?
  - hooverd 2y ago
    Depends on who you ask. Maybe seed oil is the devil and should only be eating beef and butter for health.
  - reducesuffering 2y ago
    Nutrition science is anything but conclusive, however there is some preliminary research indicating seed oils may not be healthy and contribute to obesity. Why are condiments like ranch and mayonnaise unhealthy? Because they're almost entirely seed oils. There is oat milk without any added oils, including Oatly, but you have to specifically look for that version, they're not always easy to find. And it will taste thinner without any fatty component that cows milk has.
  - blargey 2y ago
    "Seed oil" is a broad category, but the most popular (cheap) seed oils would also fall under "ultraprocessed foods". Canola oil in particular is ever-present in the US, and unlike other refined plant oils, requires the ultraprocessing to be considered fit for human consumption (you'll never see extra-virgin canola oil on a grocery shelf). Debates about its safety aside, I don't feel the need to give it the benefit of the doubt when I could just eat something that doesn't contain it, and that something would likely be healthier for many other reasons.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> when dairy has been a massively important staple of advanced societies for thousands of years “Approximately 65 percent of the human population has a reduced ability to digest lactose after infancy. Lactase nonpersistence is most prevalent in people of East Asian descent, with 70 to 100 percent of people affected in these communities. Lactase nonpersistence is also very common in people of West African, Arab, Jewish, Greek, and Italian descent” [1]. Digesting cow’s milk relies on a new gene (<10,000 years old) that evolved in Northern Europe, East Africa and the Middle East [2]. Most adults—65 to 90%—have some degree of lactose intolerance. It’s simply untrue that dairy has been a staple of even a plurality of advanced civilisations over history. [1] https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/condition/lactose-intolerance/#frequency https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/condition/lactose-intoleran... [2] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/lactose-tolerance-and-human-evolution-56187902/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/lactose-toleranc...

dualogy 2y ago
But the quoted poster said "dairy", not milk. Lots of dairy has little to no lactose, from butter to cream-cheeses to indeed cream itself (clotted, double, or even the liquid 30% fat "whipping cream") to yogurts / kefirs, and pretty much all kinds of cheeses too... I can't handle milk either, or anything high-lactose. The above things, though, no prob. I'd guess most of the "lactose-intolerant" will do alright with moderate (non-binge) amounts of such low- (but not no-) lactose foods. Variations of all those are indeed much-loved staples all over the world, whether of the cow or the goat or the sheep (or gazelle? caribou? ruminant species abound!) variety, depending on regional grazing conditions I guess.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - lenkite 2y ago
    How "biologically recently" are you talking about ? In India, milk has been there since the first domestication of cattle 8000 years ago. Ancient Indian civilization was built on milk. Not only was it drunk regularly but it was also turned into ghee.

racional 2y ago

Plant 'milks' are just going through a lot of effort to take generally decent foodstuff (oats, nuts, etc.) and watering them down, massively reducing the nutritional density and content. The macro and micro content of things like oat milk, cashew milk, and so on are next to water because that's basically what they are. People don't reach for plant milk (or butter) for the nutritive content; but rather for the texture and taste, which make other foods (smoothies, porridge), not to mention coffee / tea (for some), more palatable -- or in the case of baked goods (or pudding, ice cream, etc) they essentially are the texture of these foods. Thus expanding their range of what they can eat (and enjoy). And to do so in a way not involving animal milk.

johnnyjeans 2y ago
And yet the rhetoric is not about the usage of dairy in its role as a garnish, it's about presenting plant milks as a genuine dietary alternative to mammalian milk. I don't find that it's the people who buy plant milk for their coffee to be the same people implying that milk's popularity was invented out of thin air by mad doctors of the post-renaissance.

m463 2y ago

> This is a really weird assertion to make The problem is the US government has propped up milk, just like it has propped up high fructose corn syrup. It has chosen winners artificially against market forces. Unfortunately some of its choices also affect the health and well being of the population (losing HFCS might not be bad?) The only decent reason I can find to do this is strategic domestic food independence (calorie wise) and prevention of some black swan famine.

ein0p 2y ago
One of those things is not at all like the other. HFCS isn’t good for anyone at all, under any circumstances.
- m463 2y ago
  but it has been highly subsidized. Dairy has been subsidized less: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/58/United_States_farm_subsidies_%28source_Congressional_Budget_Office%29.svg/800px-United_States_farm_subsidies_%28source_Congressional_Budget_Office%29.svg.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/58/Un...

inkyoto 2y ago

> It's been interesting watching the reactionary rally against dairy over the last 10 years. Watching laypeople with zero scientific background write editorials on nutrition-adjacent topics is always a great workout of patience. > One of the more bewildering things I see is comparison of mammalian milks to plant milks […] It is a case of hypocrisy on both sides. You are correct in your observation that most plant «milks» are nutritionally poor substitutes for mammalian milks. «Milk» perhaps should not be used in this context, but it is an accepted convenience due to the concept of «milk» being well known and recognised. The base of such drinks is effectively a sediment obtained through grinding grains or nuts and fixed with a plant based thickening agent (e.g. tapioca starch or xantham gum) to prevent the grounds from separating from the water. Extra nutrients may be added (cheap maltodextrin as a sweetener or plant oils) and most of them do not increase a nutritional value of such a drink. Without descending into a debate discussing the merits (or the lack thereof) of the nutritional profile of the cow's milk, the story of it is convoluted at the very least. The nutritional profile of the cow's milk can vary wildly depending on what the cow was fed with, and grain fed cows and «free range» cows will produce will produce milk with a vastly different balance of fatty acids: – The former: «forcefully» increased Ω-6 (through the grain ingestion) and lower Ω-3 and monounsaturated fatty acids (due to most grains being poor in both) in the content; – The latter: balanced Ω-3 and monounsaturated fatty acids composition due to the lack of interference with the cow's biology. The actual balance is a tricky affair as it depends on how nutritionally rich is the soil that the grass has grown on and which the cow has grazed on. That is the first problem. Secondly, there is an issue of cows being tended to by veterinary professionals and farmers who inject antibiotics for the animal's wellbeing reason (the former) and add growth hormones to encourage faster cow's growth and milk producing readiness (the latter). Whilst the antibiotics are fairly quickly removed from the body (whilst at least temporarily disturbing the biological homeostasis), the hormones are particularly tricky as they have a propensity to stay in the body for a very long time, and they usually disturb the hormonal balance in the body. Hormonal therapy (in humans and in animals) is still not well understood and is an area of active research, hence why hormonal treatments are a sparely used medicine oftentimes laden with complications. Both types of substances, however, leech into the milk and end up in consumer's hands, which has been acknowledged as an issue and even resulted in actions of different governments around the world to put specific regulations into place. And since lactation is also a hormonal process, humans ingesting the mammalian milk have been receiving a steady supply of animal's own hormones that are exogenous to the human body and with largely unknown long term effects. We have certainly not developed horns, tails and udders by virtue of drinking milk, but the long terms effects have been questioned at least. Therefore, the nutritional composition of the industrially produced cow's milk today is complicated. The real issue is that both sides push their own respective agenda, oftentimes driven by questionable motives, aiming to win or gain a upper hand at any cost. > This is a really weird assertion to make when dairy has been a massively important staple of advanced societies for thousands of years, and continues to be in places like rural India, Turkey, Central Asia […] Goat/buffalo, sheep and camel milk, respectively, – for each named region and in limited amounts. Not even remotely comparable to the Western scale. Consuming camel milk in Central Asia specifically has been a historical necessity due to it being vast, too dry or too rugged for farming, therefore a quick fix for the malnourishment problem was required. It became the camel, an animal that dwelled in and was adapted for life in a harsh climate and did not require large pastures. Should there have been the lush greenery and an abundance of plants, the history of nutrition in Central Asia would have taken a different turn. Also, further down below you mention the milk consumption in China. China is big, the climate is different in different parts of China: northern China has long winters that are cold, dry, below freezing, and long summers that are hot and humid. Southern China, on other hand, is mostly subtropical and evergreen. Nutritional habits are also different in the north and in the south: wheat is used instead of rice in the north as rice requires a lot of water to grow, and wheat is virtually unheard of in the south and rice is ubiquitous. Even if the cow's milk is consumed in China, it would be predominantly in the north but not in the south where it is missing from the local dietary intake altogether. Having said that, I do not think it is correct to project that, based on the limited milk consumption in a few isolated parts of China, it was a commonplace in the past.

gehwartzen 2y ago

Milk and milk products with beneficial bacteria useful in digesting and tolerating said milk is what’s been around for millennia not the stuff we pick up at the grocery store. Even though we’ve been doing it for a long time it still feels like an odd thing for the human animal to do. If one exists I can imagine a creator yelling “you’re not humming correctly!”

euroderf 2y ago

> massively reducing the nutritional density and content Making faux anything out of cashews is criminal. The destruction of flavor counts too.

mattpallissard 2y ago

> This is a really weird assertion But not surprising, it is vox, and hit pieces are kind-of their schtick.