Nutritional benefits of milk

[Guest guest]

It's very filling and satisfying. It has protein, B12 and Calcium. Even if the protein and Calcium can be problematic...in small amounts it maybe very helpful.

 

Please understand I don't think we need it or it's kind to drink the stuff with so many other options...but I do think milk and meat have nutritional benefits along with the drawbacks.

 

Meat for instance, has a lot of iron, protein and is very satisfying. Also people tend to feel "energized" from a little bit from it. To deny this would make us dishonest.

 

Let me clarify again...I am not advocating meat eating. I am not a meat not because of the health aspects but purely because of the humane issue. Please don't misunderstand my post. We need to understand why people feel they need it in order to find good substitutes.

 

Kristina

 

n a message dated 1/12/05 5:33:22 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, writes:

Message: 8 Wed, 12 Jan 2005 02:20:06 -0000 "Peter" <metalscarabRe: Digest Number 1539Hi Kristina> No, we may not need milk and I am not a big advocate of it and I am willing to go without...but to say there are not ANY nutritional> benefits...I don't know..doesn't seem honest.OK - so, what are the nutritional benefits of cows milk for humans?BBPeter

 

 

[Guest guest]

, lv2breathe@a... wrote:

> Please don't misunderstand my post. We need to understand why people feel

they

> need it in order to find good substitutes.

>

> Kristina

>

 

Agreed with the above. For this is the need that the meat industry always sells.

From the results it is evident that they are doing a fantastic job.

 

Vijay

[Guest guest]

Hi Kristina

 

OK. On that basis, then it would also be dishonest to say that there

are no nutritional values in dog turd - that contains B12 as well!

 

BB

Peter

 

, lv2breathe@a... wrote:

>

> It's very filling and satisfying. It has protein, B12 and

Calcium. Even

> if the protein and Calcium can be problematic...in small amounts

it maybe very

> helpful.

>

> Please understand I don't think we need it or it's kind to drink

the stuff

> with so many other options...but I do think milk and meat have

nutritional

> benefits along with the drawbacks.

>

> Meat for instance, has a lot of iron, protein and is very

satisfying. Also

> people tend to feel " energized " from a little bit from it. To

deny this

> would make us dishonest.

>

> Let me clarify again...I am not advocating meat eating. I am not

a meat not

> because of the health aspects but purely because of the humane

issue.

> Please don't misunderstand my post. We need to understand why

people feel they

> need it in order to find good substitutes.

>

> Kristina

>

> n a message dated 1/12/05 5:33:22 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,

> writes:

>

> Message: 8

> Wed, 12 Jan 2005 02:20:06 -0000

> " Peter " <metalscarab@b...>

> Re: Digest Number 1539

>

> Hi Kristina

>

> > No, we may not need milk and I am not a big advocate of it and I

am

> willing to go without...but to say there are not ANY nutritional

> > benefits...I don't know..doesn't seem honest.

>

> OK - so, what are the nutritional benefits of cows milk for humans?

>

> BB

> Peter

[Guest guest]

, " Peter " <metalscarab@b...> wrote:

>

> Hi Kristina

>

> OK. On that basis, then it would also be dishonest to say that there

> are no nutritional values in dog turd - that contains B12 as well!

>

> BB

> Peter

 

 

Excellent arguement. I had similar thoughts for eg., why not choose milk of

other mammals ? Why only Cows ? The answer is that Cows are domesticated, more

friendly towards humans, they produce a good profitable quantity of milk to make

it worth the efforts, the color is attractive, not a very bad smell etc., Plus

also, the Cow is considered Holy in India.

 

In this regard, the cow dung (excretion) was also collected, made flat, dried

and then used as fuel for heating in some villages. This sounds good but

produces a lot of harmful smoke.

 

Vijay

[Guest guest]

great..no peter's a fecopheliac....

 

dead fried corprolites anyone? Peter Jan 12, 2005 11:58 AM Re: Nutritional benefits of milk Hi KristinaOK. On that basis, then it would also be dishonest to say that there are no nutritional values in dog turd - that contains B12 as well!BBPeter , lv2breathe@a... wrote:> > It's very filling and satisfying. It has protein, B12 and Calcium. Even > if the protein and Calcium can be problematic...in small amounts it maybe very > helpful.> > Please understand I don't think we need it or it's kind to drink the stuff > with so many other options...but I do think milk and meat have nutritional > benefits along with the drawbacks.> > Meat for instance, has a lot of iron, protein and is very satisfying. Also > people tend to feel "energized" from a little bit from it. To deny this > would make us dishonest.> > Let me clarify again...I am not advocating meat eating. I am not a meat not > because of the health aspects but purely because of the humane issue. > Please don't misunderstand my post. We need to understand why people feel they > need it in order to find good substitutes.> > Kristina> > n a message dated 1/12/05 5:33:22 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, > writes:> > Message: 8 > Wed, 12 Jan 2005 02:20:06 -0000> "Peter" <metalscarab@b...>> Re: Digest Number 1539> > Hi Kristina> > > No, we may not need milk and I am not a big advocate of it and I am > willing to go without...but to say there are not ANY nutritional> > benefits...I don't know..doesn't seem honest.> > OK - so, what are the nutritional benefits of cows milk for humans?> > BB> PeterTo send an email to -

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

welll..modern industrial production milk isn't very pretty apparantly...

they have to basically bleach it

too much blood and other..things....

 

 

As far as milk being good..i'm just gonna leave it at this

name another creature that drinks another mammals milk...

go ahead..i'll wait....

*twiddles thumbs*

 

Excellent arguement. I had similar thoughts for eg., why not choose milk of other mammals ? Why only Cows ? The answer is that Cows are domesticated, more friendly towards humans, they produce a good profitable quantity of milk to make it worth the efforts, the color is attractive, not a very bad smell etc., Plus also, the Cow is considered Holy in India.In this regard, the cow dung (excretion) was also collected, made flat, dried and then used as fuel for heating in some villages. This sounds good but produces a lot of harmful smoke.VijayTo send an email to -

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

, fraggle <EBbrewpunx@e...> wrote:

>

 

Agreed modern milk production is terrible and also spreading to India.

 

In respect to Mammals drinking another's milk, man is very innovative/adaptive,

some of his inventions/discoveries are not that great.

 

Vijay

[Guest guest]

and now i can't get the simpson's episode out of my head ..where they milk the rats....

Fat Tony: I don't get it. Everyone loves rats, but they don't want to drink the rats' milk?Excellent arguement. I had similar thoughts for eg., why not choose milk of other mammals ? Why only Cows ? The answer is that Cows are domesticated, more friendly towards humans, they produce a good profitable quantity of milk to make it worth the efforts, the color is attractive, not a very bad smell etc., Plus also, the Cow is considered Holy in India.In this regard, the cow dung (excretion) was also collected, made flat, dried and then used as fuel for heating in some villages. This sounds good but produces a lot of harmful smoke.VijayTo send an email to -

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

, lv2breathe@a... wrote:

>

> It's very filling and satisfying. It has protein, B12 and

Calcium. Even

> if the protein and Calcium can be problematic...in small amounts

it maybe very

> helpful.

 

Now that I am vegan, I really don't find that milk is satisfying. It

produces lactose intolerance in many adults.

 

The problem I have with the Hare Krishnas legend is that since Cows

can't talk, we can't ask them. It is a matter of respect, to not

take what is not ours.

 

So It is very hard to know if a cow, was giving milk freely to

humans. It is convenient, however, from a human advantage, to think

that they are.

 

>

>>

> Meat for instance, has a lot of iron, protein and is very

satisfying. Also

> people tend to feel " energized " from a little bit from it. To

deny this

> would make us dishonest.

 

from a person, who was born a vegetarian,

I do not share your viewpoint of meat being Satisfying. In what

sense do you mean?

Taste?

well, try eating meat without the seasonings, try the same

seasonings on tofu. you see, this is why the " fake " meat industry is

so succesful. It is the seasonings that make it taste so " good " .

 

Smell? since, I don't associate meat with food.

I smell it as rotting cooking flesh instead. Honestly it makes me

puke. Fish to me smells like someone who is dying. To me eating meat

is the same as cannabalism.

 

Fullness?

of course it is satisfying this way. It just stays, and stays, in

your stomach. and stays... and stays...

 

when you say it makes us disnhonest. It seems like you speak for

everyone. I cannot " miss " the taste of meat. and I'm sure that if I

were to eat it, I would not find it satisfying, due to my mental

associations with it, as It would be like eating my brother. Any

nutritional benefit would be irrelevant to me.

 

 

The filling and satisfying part is true for you, but not me.

 

-anouk

[Guest guest]

I'm no expert, but I think that in India, in the past, it was

probably necessary for people to use a little milk if protein food

was in short supply, and I think they probably didn't use it in such

vast quantities as US and UK people seem to feel is necessary, and

there is nothing wrong with using the dung. The trouble is that the

arguments pertaining to another country cannot be carried over as

though applicable to different countries.

 

Jo

 

, rvijay07@m... wrote:

>

> , " Peter " <metalscarab@b...> wrote:

> >

> > Hi Kristina

> >

> > OK. On that basis, then it would also be dishonest to say that

there

> > are no nutritional values in dog turd - that contains B12 as well!

> >

> > BB

> > Peter

>

>

> Excellent arguement. I had similar thoughts for eg., why not choose

milk of other mammals ? Why only Cows ? The answer is that Cows are

domesticated, more friendly towards humans, they produce a good

profitable quantity of milk to make it worth the efforts, the color

is attractive, not a very bad smell etc., Plus also, the Cow is

considered Holy in India.

>

> In this regard, the cow dung (excretion) was also collected, made

flat, dried and then used as fuel for heating in some villages. This

sounds good but produces a lot of harmful smoke.

>

> Vijay

[Guest guest]

, " heartwerk " <heartwork@c...> wrote:

>

> I'm no expert, but I think that in India, in the past, it was

> probably necessary for people to use a little milk if protein food

> was in short supply, and I think they probably didn't use it in such

> vast quantities as US and UK people seem to feel is necessary, and

> there is nothing wrong with using the dung. The trouble is that the

> arguments pertaining to another country cannot be carried over as

> though applicable to different countries.

>

> Jo

>

 

 

It is not just different countries, it is different continents !!!

There are several local factors. But there were and are milk and sweets salesmen

in India. When sales of milks and sweets increase they profit greatly. So they

have local milk sweets and vastly promote these products. So inspite of having a

large Vegetarian population India has a diabetic apidemic well recognized by the

UN as well as heart diseases etc., from the consumption of butter and other milk

derivatives. All in all, these salesmen have done a damn good job of selling

these products over the generations, it seems to me.

 

Vijay

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005, Anouk Sickler wrote:

 

> The filling and satisfying part is true for you, but not me.

 

I don't think Kristina was necessarily speaking even for herself, but

rather stating the experience of people who *do* drink milk or eat meat.

And I think she has a valid point. The fact is, most humans, through most

of human history, have consumed animal products. And the fact is, it *is*

possible to be healthy and to enjoy filling and good-tasting meals that

contain animal products. Sure, it's also possible--and, in the U.S., very

common--to eat an unhealthy meat-based diet and suffer health problems as

a result. But it's also possible to eat an unhealthy vegan diet that

causes health problems. The only conclusion of that argument is that it's

necessary to pay attention to what you eat and make sure it meets your

nutritional requirements.

 

If we're talking to meat eaters about their own personal health needs, I

think the personal health argument is not the strongest argument for

veganism. And making across-the-board statements that animal products are

bad for health weakens it still more. We can muster studies suggesting

that a good vegan diet is healthIER than an animal-based diet, but that

can still get us bogged down in dueling research papers and devolve into a

war of statistics. That approach very rarely leads people to change the

established behavior patterns. Even people *already* suffering from health

problems caused by unhealthy consumption of animal products, and whose own

doctors urge them to cut down, usually don't become vegan. So what effect

do you think we'd have if we go around trying to convince healthy,

satisfied meat-eaters that their diet is unhealthy and disgusting?

Kristina is right. That argument is not credible to them. They *are*

healthy, they feel good, and they enjoy what they eat.

 

When non-vegetarians try to convince *me* that my vegan diet must be

unhealthy and unappealing, that tofu is disgusting, etc., I know right

away that these people don't know what they're talking about. How do I

know that? Because I am healthy (well, at least I'm doing very well for a

person with my various NON-diet-related health problems), and because the

foods I eat taste good to me and I enjoy eating them. Well, a healthy

non-vegetarian who enjoys the taste of animal foods would respond exactly

the same way to me if I were to claim that his/her diet is unhealthy and

unappealing. He/she would conclude that I obviously don't know what I'm

talking about, and would then tune out anything else I might say.

 

I think the argument about the environmental effects of intensive animal

farming is more credible to the average meat-eater, but it's still

distant, abstract, and not likely to change entrenched behavior patterns.

When the average person living in an industrialized country is hungry, the

Big Mac is right here, right now. Massive pollution from farm runoff,

destruction of rain forests, famine, and water shortages are far away in

space and time. At best, this argument might convince people to consume

*less* animal products, so that fewer animals are farmed and there's less

environmental impact. More likely, especially in the U.S., it leads to

increased study for technological solutions to make intensive farming more

tenable.

 

Personally, I'm a vegan because of my concern for animals. I'm a vegan

because I don't think animals should be killed, or should spend their

lives suffering under inhumane conditions. And I think that is also the

argument that stands the best chance of getting through to

non-vegetarians. Most people have some positive contact with companion

animals. Most people are inclined to have at least some degree of

compassion for animals that are suffering.

 

So why do most people continue to consume animal products? I think there

are three main reasons: 1) They don't know (or choose not to think) about

the distress suffered by the animals; 2) they believe it is necessary to

eat animal products for their own health and survival; 3) they have spent

their whole lives eating animal products, are accustomed to it, and can't

imagine a vegan diet being filling or appealing.

 

Those are the things we need to counter if we hope to persuade more people

to consider adopting veganism. We need to get them thinking about the

suffering of farm animals (and that's a tricky thing, because sledgehammer

tactics can easily backfire and create even more resistance); we need to

show them that people *can* live and be healthy on a vegan diet; and we

need to show them that vegan foods can be filling and delicious.

 

Showing that vegan diets can be healthy, filling, and delicious does *not*

require attacking their current, animal-based diets. The only thing that

*does* require direct attack is their ignorance about animal suffering.

And, as I just said, that is already a very delicate problem, because if

we come across as too aggressive it can backfire. We don't need to invite

more conflict by attacking things that don't need to be attacked, such as the

healthiness or tastiness (to *them*) of their current diets.

 

When I talk to non-vegetarians about being vegan, I don't talk about how I

used to find fish disgusting and smelly when I was growing up in a

non-vegetarian family. I don't talk about how the smell of meat makes me

feel sick. Those points have no persuasive value to anyone else. Obviously

if somebody is choosing to eat meat or fish, then that person does not

share my feelings. That person obviously thinks the fish and the meat

smell and taste good. How many people ever become vegans on the basis of

simply not enjoying the taste of animal products? I've never met anyone

who became vegan for that reason.

 

When I talk to non-vegetarians, I do not dispute that a diet containing

animal products can be a healthy one. And I do not dispute that for people

who choose to eat animal products, those animal products must taste good

and be satisfying. Instead, I point out that a vegan diet can *also* be a

healthy one, and that a vegan diet can *also* be tasty and satisfying.

There are no sacrifices of healthy or enjoyment in switching to a vegan

diet.

 

For the person making the decision of what to eat, *either* diet can be

healthy and filling and enjoyable. BUT--for the animals, it makes a huge

difference. And *that* is where I keep my focus: Sure, you can eat

organically-raised lean meat and skim milk and egg whites without the

yolks, etc., and you can be healthy and enjoy your food. But for you to do

that, you are contributing to the suffering and slaughter of animals.

Whereas I, with my vegan diet, can be just as healthy and enjoy my food

just as much, and *not* harm animals in the process.

 

That keeps the argument where it really belongs, I think. It doesn't get

me bogged down in trying to convince healthy people that their diets are

hurting them. It's enough if I can convince them that their diets are

hurting *animals*, AND that they can switch to a diet that does not hurt

animals, without needing to sacrifice their own health or enjoyment.

 

(Plus, my approach also works for discussions about vegan dogs and cats.

It would be ludicrous for me to try to claim that eating meat is unhealthy

for cats, or to deny that both cats and dogs are evolutionarily adapted to

eat meat! But I can argue that domestic dogs and cats do not hunt for

their own food and are dependent on humans to feed them. And I can

demonstrate empirically that my dogs and cats are healthy and enjoy their

vegan food. If I can prove that it is possible for them to be healthy and

enjoy food that tastes good to them, without needing to harm other animals

in the process, I don't think I need any additional justification.)

 

Jim Sinclair jisincla

[Guest guest]

I think that most of what you say is true. The discussion, to start with,

was not about how to get non-vegans to consider changing their diet. It was

just a discussion among vegans, stemming from a Hare Krishna story. I

personally feel it is next to useless, and somewhat presumptuous of us to

comment to others about what they eat, unless they want to know the ins and

outs of being vegan. People will only change their diet when they have made

that decision themselves - if you try to persuade them they dig in their

heels and won't even think about it. The omnivores where I work often say

my lunch smells delicious, so it isn't as though they aren't aware that

vegan food can be really good. As I say, my comments about milk were as

seen - for the eyes of vegans, not something that I would preach to

omnivores (unless asked by them). I find it much more fun to tell them how

much pus is in their milk, if I'm feeling mean :-)

 

Jo

-

" Jim Sinclair " <jisincla

 

Thursday, January 13, 2005 5:11 PM

Re: Re: Nutritional benefits of milk

 

 

>

> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005, Anouk Sickler wrote:

>

> > The filling and satisfying part is true for you, but not me.

>

> I don't think Kristina was necessarily speaking even for herself, but

> rather stating the experience of people who *do* drink milk or eat meat.

> And I think she has a valid point. The fact is, most humans, through most

> of human history, have consumed animal products. And the fact is, it *is*

> possible to be healthy and to enjoy filling and good-tasting meals that

> contain animal products. Sure, it's also possible--and, in the U.S., very

> common--to eat an unhealthy meat-based diet and suffer health problems as

> a result. But it's also possible to eat an unhealthy vegan diet that

> causes health problems. The only conclusion of that argument is that it's

> necessary to pay attention to what you eat and make sure it meets your

> nutritional requirements.

>

> If we're talking to meat eaters about their own personal health needs, I

> think the personal health argument is not the strongest argument for

> veganism. And making across-the-board statements that animal products are

> bad for health weakens it still more. We can muster studies suggesting

> that a good vegan diet is healthIER than an animal-based diet, but that

> can still get us bogged down in dueling research papers and devolve into a

> war of statistics. That approach very rarely leads people to change the

> established behavior patterns. Even people *already* suffering from health

> problems caused by unhealthy consumption of animal products, and whose own

> doctors urge them to cut down, usually don't become vegan. So what effect

> do you think we'd have if we go around trying to convince healthy,

> satisfied meat-eaters that their diet is unhealthy and disgusting?

> Kristina is right. That argument is not credible to them. They *are*

> healthy, they feel good, and they enjoy what they eat.

>

> When non-vegetarians try to convince *me* that my vegan diet must be

> unhealthy and unappealing, that tofu is disgusting, etc., I know right

> away that these people don't know what they're talking about. How do I

> know that? Because I am healthy (well, at least I'm doing very well for a

> person with my various NON-diet-related health problems), and because the

> foods I eat taste good to me and I enjoy eating them. Well, a healthy

> non-vegetarian who enjoys the taste of animal foods would respond exactly

> the same way to me if I were to claim that his/her diet is unhealthy and

> unappealing. He/she would conclude that I obviously don't know what I'm

> talking about, and would then tune out anything else I might say.

>

> I think the argument about the environmental effects of intensive animal

> farming is more credible to the average meat-eater, but it's still

> distant, abstract, and not likely to change entrenched behavior patterns.

> When the average person living in an industrialized country is hungry, the

> Big Mac is right here, right now. Massive pollution from farm runoff,

> destruction of rain forests, famine, and water shortages are far away in

> space and time. At best, this argument might convince people to consume

> *less* animal products, so that fewer animals are farmed and there's less

> environmental impact. More likely, especially in the U.S., it leads to

> increased study for technological solutions to make intensive farming more

> tenable.

>

> Personally, I'm a vegan because of my concern for animals. I'm a vegan

> because I don't think animals should be killed, or should spend their

> lives suffering under inhumane conditions. And I think that is also the

> argument that stands the best chance of getting through to

> non-vegetarians. Most people have some positive contact with companion

> animals. Most people are inclined to have at least some degree of

> compassion for animals that are suffering.

>

> So why do most people continue to consume animal products? I think there

> are three main reasons: 1) They don't know (or choose not to think) about

> the distress suffered by the animals; 2) they believe it is necessary to

> eat animal products for their own health and survival; 3) they have spent

> their whole lives eating animal products, are accustomed to it, and can't

> imagine a vegan diet being filling or appealing.

>

> Those are the things we need to counter if we hope to persuade more people

> to consider adopting veganism. We need to get them thinking about the

> suffering of farm animals (and that's a tricky thing, because sledgehammer

> tactics can easily backfire and create even more resistance); we need to

> show them that people *can* live and be healthy on a vegan diet; and we

> need to show them that vegan foods can be filling and delicious.

>

> Showing that vegan diets can be healthy, filling, and delicious does *not*

> require attacking their current, animal-based diets. The only thing that

> *does* require direct attack is their ignorance about animal suffering.

> And, as I just said, that is already a very delicate problem, because if

> we come across as too aggressive it can backfire. We don't need to invite

> more conflict by attacking things that don't need to be attacked, such as

the

> healthiness or tastiness (to *them*) of their current diets.

>

> When I talk to non-vegetarians about being vegan, I don't talk about how I

> used to find fish disgusting and smelly when I was growing up in a

> non-vegetarian family. I don't talk about how the smell of meat makes me

> feel sick. Those points have no persuasive value to anyone else. Obviously

> if somebody is choosing to eat meat or fish, then that person does not

> share my feelings. That person obviously thinks the fish and the meat

> smell and taste good. How many people ever become vegans on the basis of

> simply not enjoying the taste of animal products? I've never met anyone

> who became vegan for that reason.

>

> When I talk to non-vegetarians, I do not dispute that a diet containing

> animal products can be a healthy one. And I do not dispute that for people

> who choose to eat animal products, those animal products must taste good

> and be satisfying. Instead, I point out that a vegan diet can *also* be a

> healthy one, and that a vegan diet can *also* be tasty and satisfying.

> There are no sacrifices of healthy or enjoyment in switching to a vegan

> diet.

>

> For the person making the decision of what to eat, *either* diet can be

> healthy and filling and enjoyable. BUT--for the animals, it makes a huge

> difference. And *that* is where I keep my focus: Sure, you can eat

> organically-raised lean meat and skim milk and egg whites without the

> yolks, etc., and you can be healthy and enjoy your food. But for you to do

> that, you are contributing to the suffering and slaughter of animals.

> Whereas I, with my vegan diet, can be just as healthy and enjoy my food

> just as much, and *not* harm animals in the process.

>

> That keeps the argument where it really belongs, I think. It doesn't get

> me bogged down in trying to convince healthy people that their diets are

> hurting them. It's enough if I can convince them that their diets are

> hurting *animals*, AND that they can switch to a diet that does not hurt

> animals, without needing to sacrifice their own health or enjoyment.

>

> (Plus, my approach also works for discussions about vegan dogs and cats.

> It would be ludicrous for me to try to claim that eating meat is unhealthy

> for cats, or to deny that both cats and dogs are evolutionarily adapted to

> eat meat! But I can argue that domestic dogs and cats do not hunt for

> their own food and are dependent on humans to feed them. And I can

> demonstrate empirically that my dogs and cats are healthy and enjoy their

> vegan food. If I can prove that it is possible for them to be healthy and

> enjoy food that tastes good to them, without needing to harm other animals

> in the process, I don't think I need any additional justification.)

>

> Jim Sinclair jisincla

>

>

>

> To send an email to -

>

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005, Jo Cwazy wrote:

 

> I think that most of what you say is true. The discussion, to start with,

> was not about how to get non-vegans to consider changing their diet. It was

> just a discussion among vegans, stemming from a Hare Krishna story.

 

If I recall correctly, the dispute about nutritional benefits started when

Kristina said something to the effect that we lose credibility with

non-vegans if we try to claim that there are *no* nutritional benefits to

drinking milk. That's the point I'm agreeing with. I don't think (and

Kristina doesn't seem to think either) that people *should* drink milk.

But given that very many people *do* drink milk, and are healthy, and

incorporate milk into a healthy diet, I agree that vegans lose credibility

if we try to deny those facts. We have much better credibility if we stick

to the points that there are vegan alternatives that provide equal or

better nutritional benefits to cow milk, and that the problem with the

dairy industry is what happens to the cows.

 

> I

> personally feel it is next to useless, and somewhat presumptuous of us to

> comment to others about what they eat, unless they want to know the ins and

> outs of being vegan. People will only change their diet when they have made

> that decision themselves - if you try to persuade them they dig in their

> heels and won't even think about it.

 

Agreed. I don't go around preaching veganism. But I am open about being

vegan myself. For some reason a lot of non-vegetarians seem to take this

as an invitation to try to persuade *me* to adopt *their* dietary

practices. And then, yes, there is the occasional person who is

sincerely interested in considering becoming vegan, and wants information,

including answers to questions like " Isn't some amount of animal protein

necessary for health? "

 

Either way, whether it's someone trying to " convert " me or someone wanting

information, I find I'm more credible if I stress the good things about

being vegan, without making unnecessary or non-credible attacks on

animal-centered diets. Claims that animals suffer in factory farms and

slaughterhouses, and that it's wrong to kill animals if we don't need to,

and that we *don't* need to consume animal products in order to be healthy

and have tasty food, are more credible than claims that there are absolutely no

nutritional benefits to consuming animal products.

 

> The omnivores where I work often say

> my lunch smells delicious, so it isn't as though they aren't aware that

> vegan food can be really good. As I say, my comments about milk were as

> seen - for the eyes of vegans, not something that I would preach to

> omnivores (unless asked by them). I find it much more fun to tell them how

> much pus is in their milk, if I'm feeling mean :-)

 

Well, if you're feeling mean and you do tell them how much pus is in their

milk, does that influence them to stop drinking milk? Or does it influence

them to dig in their heels and tune you out?

 

Jim Sinclair jisincla

[Guest guest]

.... and the discussion was not concerned with talking to non-vegans so there

was no credibility to lose. We had not started out talking about what to

say to non-vegans. It was a discussion about a Hare Krishna story

concerning milk - the discussion was on this list for vegans and nobody said

that any comments should be made outside of this list to non-vegans. I am

not worried that you discuss what you say to non-vegans - just detailing the

progression of the discussion so that you are not under a misapprehension

that any of our comments were intended for people outside of this list.

 

Jo

>

> If I recall correctly, the dispute about nutritional benefits started when

> Kristina said something to the effect that we lose credibility with

> non-vegans if we try to claim that there are *no* nutritional benefits to

> drinking milk.

[Guest guest]

i was lettin this discussion pass me by

but

semantics

i think i can make the argument that milk is NOT part of a healthy diet...

just cuz someone drinks milk and is healthy, doesn't make milk a healthy part of that diet

ya know wot i mean?

there are some folks who eat big macs fer every meal, and seem perfectly healthy..you want to say big macs are part of a healthy diet?

i've known folks who shot up heroin everyday..you would think *junkie*, right?

but..they seemed fine, seemed healthy, kept a steady job, didnt steal, didn't get *cotton flu* er anything like that

so, can we say heroin is part of a healthy lifestyle?? Jim Sinclair Jan 13, 2005 11:12 AM Re: Re: Nutritional benefits of milk On Thu, 13 Jan 2005, Jo Cwazy wrote:> I think that most of what you say is true. The discussion, to start with,> was not about how to get non-vegans to consider changing their diet. It was> just a discussion among vegans, stemming from a Hare Krishna story.If I recall correctly, the dispute about nutritional benefits started whenKristina said something to the effect that we lose credibility withnon-vegans if we try to claim that there are *no* nutritional benefits todrinking milk. That's the point I'm agreeing with. I don't think (andKristina doesn't seem to think either) that people *should* drink milk.But given that very many people *do* drink milk, and are healthy, andincorporate milk into a healthy diet, I agree that vegans lose credibilityif we try to deny those facts. We have much better credibility if we stickto the points that there are vegan alternatives that provide equal orbetter nutritional benefits to cow milk, and that the problem with thedairy industry is what happens to the cows.

[Guest guest]

I thought of this instantly, too. They called it " malk " I remember.

 

, fraggle <EBbrewpunx@e...> wrote:

> and now i can't get the simpson's episode out of my head ..where

they milk the rats....

 

Fat Tony: I don't get it. Everyone loves rats, but they don't want

to drink the rats' milk?

[Guest guest]

different episode..

that's when the teachers go on strike....

Malk, now with more vitamin R! Sara Jan 13, 2005 1:49 PM Re: Nutritional benefits of milk I thought of this instantly, too. They called it "malk" I remember. , fraggle <EBbrewpunx@e...> wrote:> and now i can't get the simpson's episode out of my head ..where they milk the rats....Fat Tony: I don't get it. Everyone loves rats, but they don't want to drink the rats' milk?To send an email to -

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

That was another reference. In the milking rats episode, Bart was in

the cafeteria saying " I don't understand why my bones are so

brittle. I've been drinking my ... " Then he looked at the

carton ... " MALK??? "

Perhaps I watch too much Simpsons???

 

, fraggle <EBbrewpunx@e...> wrote:

> different episode..

that's when the teachers go on strike....

Malk, now with more vitamin R!

 

 

 

Sara

 

I thought of this instantly, too. They called it " malk " I remember.

 

, fraggle <EBbrewpunx@e...> wrote:

> and now i can't get the simpson's episode out of my head ..where

they milk the rats....

 

Fat Tony: I don't get it. Everyone loves rats, but they don't want

to drink the rats' milk?

[Guest guest]

nope...different episode

the Malk one was when the teachers go on strike...

The milking rats one was when homer becomes the mayor' bodyguard...

 

now, wot were saying about watchin too much of the simpsons?

:)don't understand why my bones are so brittle. I've been drinking my ..." Then he looked at the carton ... "MALK???"Perhaps I watch too much Simpsons??? , fraggle <EBbrewpunx@e...> wrote:> different episode..that's when the teachers go on strike....Malk, now with more vitamin R! Sara I thought of this instantly, too. They called it "malk" I remember. , fraggle <EBbrewpunx@e...> wrote:> and now i can't get the simpson's episode out of my head ..where they milk the rats....Fat Tony: I don't get it. Everyone loves rats, but they don't want to drink the rats' milk?To send an email to -

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Guess I'll have to go back and re-watch both. We'll see

 

 

, fraggle <EBbrewpunx@e...> wrote:

> nope...different episode

the Malk one was when the teachers go on strike...

The milking rats one was when homer becomes the mayor' bodyguard...

 

now, wot were saying about watchin too much of the simpsons?

 

 

 

 

don't understand why my bones are so

brittle. I've been drinking my ... " Then he looked at the

carton ... " MALK??? "

Perhaps I watch too much Simpsons???

 

, fraggle <EBbrewpunx@e...> wrote:

> different episode..

that's when the teachers go on strike....

Malk, now with more vitamin R!

 

 

 

Sara

 

I thought of this instantly, too. They called it " malk " I remember.

 

, fraggle <EBbrewpunx@e...> wrote:

> and now i can't get the simpson's episode out of my head ..where

they milk the rats....

 

Fat Tony: I don't get it. Everyone loves rats, but they don't want

to drink the rats' milk?

[Guest guest]

Anouk

 

When I was saying meat was "satisfying" I was not talking about my experiences or yours. I, like you I am guessing, have no desire for meat. I have been meatless for close to 20 years.

 

The post wasn't intended as a personal debate on the benefits of meat. I was speaking about people who are not like us. Trying to shed some light on why they like it...want it. If we don't acknowledge this...we are not helping because we are not understanding.

 

Again...I have no desire for me...haven't for years.

 

Kristina

 

 

In a message dated 1/12/05 11:45:06 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, writes:

Message: 13 Thu, 13 Jan 2005 06:21:41 -0000 "Anouk Sickler" <zurumatoRe: Nutritional benefits of milk , lv2breathe@a... wrote:> > It's very filling and satisfying. It has protein, B12 and Calcium. Even > if the protein and Calcium can be problematic...in small amounts it maybe very > helpful. Now that I am vegan, I really don't find that milk is satisfying. It produces lactose intolerance in many adults.The problem I have with the Hare Krishnas legend is that since Cows can't talk, we can't ask them. It is a matter of respect, to not take what is not ours. So It is very hard to know if a cow, was giving milk freely to humans. It is convenient, however, from a human advantage, to think that they are. > >> > Meat for instance, has a lot of iron, protein and is very satisfying. Also > people tend to feel "energized" from a little bit from it. To deny this > would make us dishonest.from a person, who was born a vegetarian, I do not share your viewpoint of meat being Satisfying. In what sense do you mean?Taste?well, try eating meat without the seasonings, try the same seasonings on tofu. you see, this is why the "fake" meat industry is so succesful. It is the seasonings that make it taste so "good".Smell? since, I don't associate meat with food.I smell it as rotting cooking flesh instead. Honestly it makes me puke. Fish to me smells like someone who is dying. To me eating meat is the same as cannabalism. Fullness?of course it is satisfying this way. It just stays, and stays, in your stomach. and stays... and stays...when you say it makes us disnhonest. It seems like you speak for everyone. I cannot "miss" the taste of meat. and I'm sure that if I were to eat it, I would not find it satisfying, due to my mental associations with it, as It would be like eating my brother. Any nutritional benefit would be irrelevant to me. The filling and satisfying part is true for you, but not me. -anouk

 

 

[Guest guest]

Well, you were right, fraggle. Now I know who not to go up against

on Simpson's trivia. Some of the episodes have kinda melded together

in my mind, I guess.

sara

 

, " Sara " <gagrip5> wrote:

>

> Guess I'll have to go back and re-watch both. We'll see

>

>

> , fraggle <EBbrewpunx@e...> wrote:

> > nope...different episode

>

> the Malk one was when the teachers go on strike...

> The milking rats one was when homer becomes the mayor' bodyguard...

>

> now, wot were saying about watchin too much of the simpsons?

>

>

>

>

>

> don't understand why my bones are so

> brittle. I've been drinking my ... " Then he looked at the

> carton ... " MALK??? "

> Perhaps I watch too much Simpsons???

>

> , fraggle <EBbrewpunx@e...> wrote:

> > different episode..

> that's when the teachers go on strike....

> Malk, now with more vitamin R!

>

>

>

> Sara

>

> I thought of this instantly, too. They called it " malk " I remember.

>

> , fraggle <EBbrewpunx@e...> wrote:

> > and now i can't get the simpson's episode out of my head ..where

> they milk the rats....

>

> Fat Tony: I don't get it. Everyone loves rats, but they don't

want

> to drink the rats' milk?

[Guest guest]

i have to be right at least once in awhile

and..sorry..simpsons has been on twice a day fer years now...

pretty well ingrained in my noggin.... Sara Jan 14, 2005 9:02 AM Re: Nutritional benefits of milk Well, you were right, fraggle. Now I know who not to go up against on Simpson's trivia. Some of the episodes have kinda melded together in my mind, I guess.sara , "Sara" <gagrip5> wrote:> > Guess I'll have to go back and re-watch both. We'll see > > > , fraggle <EBbrewpunx@e...> wrote:> > nope...different episode> > the Malk one was when the teachers go on strike...> The milking rats one was when homer becomes the mayor' bodyguard...> > now, wot were saying about watchin too much of the simpsons?> > > > > > don't understand why my bones are so > brittle. I've been drinking my ..." Then he looked at the > carton ... "MALK???"> Perhaps I watch too much Simpsons???> > , fraggle <EBbrewpunx@e...> wrote:> > different episode..> that's when the teachers go on strike....> Malk, now with more vitamin R!> > > > Sara > > I thought of this instantly, too. They called it "malk" I remember.> > , fraggle <EBbrewpunx@e...> wrote:> > and now i can't get the simpson's episode out of my head ..where > they milk the rats....> > Fat Tony: I don't get it. Everyone loves rats, but they don't want > to drink the rats' milk?To send an email to -

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005, fraggle wrote:

 

> i think i can make the argument that milk is NOT part of a healthy

> diet...

> just cuz someone drinks milk and is healthy, doesn't make milk a healthy

> part of that diet

 

True, as far as that goes. It does indicate that milk is not severely

toxic, in that it is possible to drink significant quantities of milk and

still be healthy, whereas it is not possible to drink similar quantities

of cyanide and still be healthy. But the fact that many healthy people

drink milk is not in itself evidence that milk is contributing anything to

their health. It could just be going in and through the body without doing

anything at all.

 

The evidence for non-human milk being potentially a part of a healthy

human diet is in many many many years of human experience and nutrition

research indicating that there *are* nutrients in cow or goat milk that

humans need, and that humans *are* capable of obtaining and using those

nutrients by drinking the milk.

 

Is that the only way, or the best way for humans to obtain those

nutrients? I think not.

 

Are there nutritional drawbacks that go along with the nutritional

benefits of drinking other animals' milk? Yes.

 

Do I drink it, or think other people ought to drink it? No.

 

But intellectual honesty requires me to acknowledge that very many

humans in very many places throughout very many years of human history

have been drinking milk, and deriving significant parts of their

nutritional requirements from it, and suffering minimal ill effects to

their own health.

 

I didn't become vegan because I thought milk was bad for me. I became

vegan because I thought my drinking milk was bad for cows.

 

> there are some folks who eat big macs fer every meal, and seem perfectly

> healthy..you want to say big macs are part of a healthy diet?

 

For *every* meal? I'd question how healthy they really are, and how long

they'll stay that way. (Thinking about the " Supersize Me " movie--pretty

dramatic health effects in a pretty short time.) But can eating Big Macs

*occasionally* be part of a healthy diet? I'd guess probably yes, as long

as the person doesn't eat them--or equally fat- and cholesterol-loaded

foods--too often. Again, the unavoidable fact is that humans *can* make

use of the protein in meat. Again, I do not believe that is the only way

or the best way to get protein, and I don't get my protein that way, and I

don't recommend that anyone else do it either. But, again, I have to

acknowledge that humans throughout history--and even pre-history--have

used meat to obtain nutrients required for their health.

 

> i've known folks who shot up heroin everyday..you would think *junkie*,

> right?

> but..they seemed fine, seemed healthy, kept a steady job, didnt steal,

> didn't get *cotton flu* er anything like that

> so, can we say heroin is part of a healthy lifestyle??

 

No, but you are comparing apples and hang gliders. Humans evolved as

omnivores, subsisting on vegetation, meat, and eggs even before they were

human, and probably starting to make use of animal milk pretty quickly

after they started domesticating cows, goats, and sheep. The fact that

descendents of early herding peoples have developed the ability to digest

lactose suggests that there was a considerable survival advantage for

those early herders who were able to drink milk. If that mutation did not

confer a survival advantage, then the incidence of the mutation would be

similar in all peoples from all parts of the world.

 

Humans did not evolve using heroin or hang gliders. Humans are an

inventive species and have learned to create many new things for

recreational purposes, including heroin and hang gliders. But I don't know

of any evidence that propensities for using heroin or for hang gliding

confer a survival advantage that gets passed on to the next generation.

With some combination of caution and luck, it's possible for some people

to engage in some amount of heroin use or hang gliding without apparent

ill effects in the short term. But if you do it often enough, and

especially if you start to get careless about it, it's likely to end up a

survival DISadvantage. Even if you happen to stay lucky all your life

(like the occasional smoker who lives to be 100 in good health), I don't

think there are any health needs that get met by heroin use or by hang

gliding. At best, if you're careful and lucky, you have some chance of

getting away with doing them and not coming to serious harm. That's not

the same thing as deriving health benefits from them.

 

Humans have evolved with the capacity to obtain our required nutrients

from many different sources, including the milk of other animals. Now,

being omnivores, and also having the ability to do technological things

like synthesize vitamin B12, we are able to survive and be healthy

*without* consuming milk or other animal products. But for humans it's a

choice. We can create healthy diets both with and without milk, just as we

can create healthy diets both with and without apples.

 

That's all I'm saying. We have a choice. That makes it an ethical matter,

not a health requirement.

 

Jim Sinclair jisincla