Which type of Milk your consuming ??

[Lay Vegan]

Thank you for finally providing evidence for that claim. Don’t come here making baseless assertions and refuse to provide evidence when asked.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1390610

If found higher bio-availability with the milk. Milk has compounds that enhance absorption while soy has compounds that reduce. Also its not clear what you mean by "nutritionally complete fortified milk". There are no fortified milks that are "nutritionally complete", cow's milk is also not nutritionally complete for a human.

The study you referenced doesn’t prove much in regard to this conversation, save that calcium in unfortified soy milk (or the use of certain fortificants in soy milk) isn’t as bioavailable as cows milk when given equal amounts of minerals. More importantly, actual absorption equivalent to that of cow milk is achieved by fortifying soy milk to a much higher concentration (preferably higher than 300 mg per cup). Most calcium fortified soy milks contain between 300 and 400 mg of calcium. Silk’s Protein Nutmilk for example contains a much higher 450 mg per cup, containing enough to result in around the same mass of calcium absorbed from a serving of cows milk. There is no evidence that these milks are nutritionally disadvantageous relative to cows milk.

The authors in the study you referenced also stated:

Supplementation of the soya-bean beverage either with phosphorus and Ca or with P, Ca and methionine, to concentrations identical to those in milk, restored growth and bone mineralization.

Once again, this is not evidence that those who don’t drink cow’s milk are in any way disadvantaged by ingesting fortified soy milk. Furthermore, soymilks fortified with a particular kind of calcium carbonate fortificant (tcp) yields similar calcium absorption to that of cows milk. Here’s a much more recent study on this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20460239 Not that any of this matters, as no one (not even young children) gets all of their calcium from milks. Should there be a slight disparity in calcium absorption between the 2 kinds, parents should analyze the whole context of their children’ diets and find ways to include further consumption of calcium.

Also its not clear what you mean by "nutritionally complete fortified milk". There are no fortified milks that are "nutritionally complete", cow's milk is also not nutritionally complete for a human.

That was a misnomer. Fortified soy milk (and other fortified plant milks) are recommend amongst dietitians and dietetic organizations as adequate replacements for cows milk.

This is funny, you complain about me not providing evidence yet you just repeat yourself without justification. "Your wrong" isn't an argument nor justification.

I provided evidence (including a screenshot of the nutrient profiles of Protein Numilk). I also provided evidence of dietitians supporting the use of certain fortified milks as replacements for cow milk.

My claim was about "most plant milks" yet you're referring to a single instance, even if we assume your instance is similar it doesn't refute anything I said.

It refutes your bullshit claim about adequately fortified plant milks being nutritionally advantageous relative to cows milk.

But you actually didn't even establish that your instance was nutritionally similar, you cited a nutritional label which only lists a very narrow selection of nutrients. Its similar in some values but not others, for example, milk is a good source of zinc while the plant-milk isn't. Now it is similar in protein, calcium and a few other nutrients.

The goal was not to establish that they were nutritionally similar, or even that bio-availability or rates of absorption are similar between cows milks and plant milks, because they are not. Plant milks must usually contain higher levels of calcium to render equivalent rates of absorption. The purpose of my argument is to establish what dietitians have already conceded; that appropriately fortified plant milks are adequate replacements for dairy milk, and are excellent sources of protein and calcium. Although, plant milks contain much lower levels of zinc, children do not cow milk primarily for zinc, and dairy isn’t even the the best source, which is why dietitians still promote soy protein isolate can as an adequate alternative. Other soy products (tofu) are more reliable source of zinc.
Furthermore, your claims about these nutritional benefits become rather nebulous, as soy milk contains benefits over cows milk including lower levels of sodium and is devoid of cholesterol and saturated fat. Again any “benefits” any particular milk claims to have over another is useless without the regarding the complete context of one’s diet.

Because I'm not talking about what people recommend, I've also noted that soy milk is the only alternative officially recognized as an alternative.

Just curious, which "officials" are you talking about. You like to arbitrarily pick and choose which officials to listen to. For example, you've dismissed the largest body of nutrition professionals (the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics) as an excellent source of nutrition information because you personally disagree with their findings about appropriately planned vegan diets being suitable for all stages of life.

I'm talking about what people are actually doing in the real world and almond milk is hands down the most popular plant-milk and people are using it as a replacement for milk.

Almond milk is not an adequate replacement for dairy milk.

People are also using the various other mock dairy products as replacements and these are often worse than the milk case, for example, most vegan cheeses have no nutritional value at all. This is what is relevant in how food is labeled, labeling mock dairy products as "milk", "cheese" encourages people to use them as a replacements but that only makes sense if they are nutritionally similar.

Vegan alternatives are always given qualifiers; that is they’re labeled “cashew” butter and not simply “butter” or “almond milk” rather than just “milk.” This implies that are not ordinary milk products, as @cornivore mentions here:

This really has nothing to do with nutrition though. Like the other court case already concluded, it doesn't make sense to argue that something like "I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter" would be misleading to people, and therefore should not be allowed to include the word butter, because you have to take it out of context to make this argument. Using the word in context is fine though, nobody has a problem with it, except the sleazy milk industry in this case (they are arguing that nobody can say it isn't milk, because it isn't milk—that nobody should be allowed to tell the truth)! Just like if you named something "I Can’t Believe It’s Not Milk", yet that's already what designating it as almond milk accomplishes, for example. They aren't calling it milk, they're calling it almondmilk, as in I can't believe it's not milk... because it's about the flavor and texture of it, not the nutrition facts

The label is not implying that both products are nutritionally similar, or even that one is more beneficial than the other, simply that the product can be served or eaten as an equivalent of the other. Many vegans are not looking for a plant-based butter that has an equivalent amount of vitamin A as dairy butter. i.e., they desire a product that tastes similar, has a similar texture, and can be used on foods in a similar fashion. The problem lies mainly in how foods are labeled. In fact, many of these alternatives are not designed to even be nutritional replacements, they’re mainly used to help facilitate an easy transition into a plan-based diet. Because this can be detrimental to the health of vegans (of all ages), it is important for food companies not to utilize deceptive advertising/marketing tactics of these products being nutritionally equivalent (or superior) alternatives to animal products, unless there is strong scientific evidence. The problem can also be countered with increased consumer-knowledge of the nutritional disparities of these vegan alternatives, and a push to fortify products lacking some of the nutrients that their animal-derived counterparts contain.

Why would I provide evidence about magical nutrients? I haven't discussed magical nutrients.

You implied that certain minerals cannot be fortified in vegan foods or taken in the form of a supplement, which is factually wrong.

There is nothing deceptive in what I said, fortification is no different than supplements. Its the same form of calcium and the amounts can easily be just as high. Many plant-milks are now being super-fortified with calcium at levels of almost 500 mg per serving, for example, the one you referred to.


And I never presented the research as being conclusive, just that the research has been increasingly negative.

Let me repeat there: Researchers have not made a clear association between calcium supplements and the risk of heart attack or stroke. http://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/25717 ... a-analysis Additionally, many people take doses that are far above rda. Many women for example, take between 1,000 or even 1,500 mg daily. Vegans are not putting themselves at an increased risk of heart disease by drinking calcium fortified plant milks.

The study I linked is one of the most recent comprehensive reviews on the topic. So no, it is not "increasingly negative."

Lastly saying things you don't agree with isn't a "crusade against plant milk". My primary argument here has been that mock dairy products shouldn't be referred to by "milk", "cheese", etc because they are in general nutritionally poor compared to dairy products. I reckon many vegans would agree when they weren't distracted with tribalism.

Of course it is a crusade against plant milks, which is why you implied that vegans are at an increased risk of heart disease by drinking fortified plant milks

Also, I disagree with you. These products are labeled as “cheese” and “dairy” because of their culinary use, i.e. they are to be cooked and eaten as plant-based alternatives. If they are not nutritionally similar, than it should be made clear by the manufacturer.

[carnap]

Don’t come here making baseless assertions and refuse to provide evidence when asked.

Except I didn't make baseless assertion nor did I refuse to provide evidence. But perhaps you should hold yourself to this standard?

The study you referenced doesn’t prove much in regard to this conversation, save that calcium in unfortified soy milk (or the use of certain fortificants in soy milk) isn’t as bioavailable as cows milk when given equal amounts of minerals.

It demonstrates exactly what I said, namely, that nutrients in milk have higher bio-availability and that is a nutritional advantage for milk.

I provided evidence (including a screenshot of the nutrient profiles of Protein Numilk). I also provided evidence of dietitians supporting the use of certain fortified milks as replacements for cow milk.

Yeah and as I explained, that wasn't evidence for anything that was being discussed. Not only does the nutritional label fail to demonstrate similarity in that specific case but a single instance wouldn't in principle refute a statement of the form "most....X". You claimed I was wrong yet systematically failed to show I was wrong.

The purpose of my argument is to establish what dietitians have already conceded; that appropriately fortified plant milks are adequate replacements for dairy milk, and are excellent sources of protein and calcium.

This is only true for fortified soy milk and this is something I noted early in the conversation. So you're giving me an argument for something I noted myself while calling me wrong? Sorry, hard to make sense of this back-tracking.

Furthermore, your claims about these nutritional benefits become rather nebulous, as soy milk contains benefits over cows milk including lower levels of sodium and is devoid of cholesterol and saturated fat.

What benefits? Dairy isn't high in sodium or cholesterol and you can get reduced fat (or non-fat) varieties. So what reason is there to believe people are benefited from consuming soy milk rather than dairy? Do you have evidence for this claim?

Just curious, which "officials" are you talking about. You like to arbitrarily pick and choose which officials to listen to. For example, you've dismissed the largest body of nutrition professionals (the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics) as an excellent source of nutrition information because you personally disagree with their findings about appropriately planned vegan diets being suitable for all stages of life.

On the contrary, I've noted that Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics is a trade group and isn't an authority on nutritional science. Also the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics does not create their own guidelines but instead refers to the USDA guidelines. So which officials? Public health organizations which are typically either government or university based.

The use of fortified soy milk as an alternative goes back well beyond the current popularity of plant-based milks and as a result there is a good deal of research on its use. As I suggested earlier, most plant milks aren't even good alternatives "on paper" because they are low in protein or another factor. Protein fortified plant milks are new and lack research so aren't recommended as well.

The label is not implying that both products are nutritionally similar, or even that one is more beneficial than the other, simply that the product can be served or eaten as an equivalent of the other.

And this is actually precisely the problem, namely, "the product can be served or eaten as an equivalent of the other". This is false in the most important sense, namely, nutritionally and this is the danger with referring to mock dairy with their traditional terms. It encourages people to use nutritionally dissimilar products in the same context as their traditional counterparts.

The average person isn't knowledgeable about the details of nutrition, their diets are based on various cultural "rules" for food use. You put milk on cereal, you put cheese on a sandwich, etc. These rules aid people in crafting a diet that is balanced without knowing the details of nutrition.

The problem lies mainly in how foods are labeled. In fact, many of these alternatives are not designed to even be nutritional replacements, they’re mainly used to help facilitate an easy transition into a plan-based diet.

This claim is outlandish, mock dairy products are being created to meet a demand not because the businesses want to facilitate people to a plant-based diet. In fact, the businesses would much rather you continue to consume mock dairy products.

Mock products are popular with veg*n because people have difficulty changing their food culture. Culture isn't very malleable once you reach adulthood.

You implied that certain minerals cannot be fortified in vegan foods or taken in the form of a supplement, which is factually wrong.

That isn't what I claimed but also there are actually some forms of nutrients that cannot readily be fortified. As I noted earlier, nutrients often come in different forms and fortification typically uses synthetic forms that have greater stability. But these synthetic forms are often metabolized differently which makes their use complicated. In the case of dairy, the increased bio-availability of nutrients isn't just due to the form of the nutrient but also a variety of co-factors in the milk and there are no synthetic variety of these co-factors that can be added to plant-milks.

Let me repeat there: Researchers have not made a clear association between calcium supplements and the risk of heart attack or stroke. http://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/25717 ... a-analysis

My commend had nothing to do with heart disease risk in particular, I just referred to a study on it as an example. The study you cited actually demonstrates my point, the research on calcium supplement has turned increasingly negative which is why the authors conducted the study in the first place. Also if you look at the study you'll find that they note other negative associations with calcium supplements.

Of course it is a crusade against plant milks, which is why you implied that vegans are at an increased risk of heart disease by drinking fortified plant milks

Except I implied no such thing, what I claimed was the the safety of calcium supplementation (which would include heavy fortification) is being called into question by recent research. Whether people are at risk when consuming fortified plant-milks hinges on how the research unfolds. But one potential concern is that plant-milks are now being fortified with even more calcium.

So, no, there is no "crusade against plant milk" in my commentary. In fact let's review my first comment in this thread:

"I use 1% fat milk and unsweetened soy milk. Generally I think actual milk works the best for baking where as I'll use soy milk in cereal and other non-baking applications. Taste wises I prefer soy milk."

Some crusade!!

[Lay Vegan]

Except I didn't make baseless assertion nor did I refuse to provide evidence. But perhaps you should hold yourself to this standard?

You failed to provide evidence that milk contained nutritional advantages, even after being asked.

It demonstrates exactly what I said, namely, that nutrients in milk have higher bio-availability and that is a nutritional advantage for milk. |

The study shows that calcium unfortified soy milk (or the use of certain fortifications in soy milk) isn’t as bioavailable as cows milk when given equal amounts of minerals. Actual absorption equivalent to that of cow milk is achieved by fortifying soy milk to a higher concentration. And most calcium-fortified soy milks contains between 300 and 400 mg of calcium. What you “proved” is that plant milks should be fortified with greater amounts of the same nutrients to increase bio-availability, not that all or even most fortified plant-based milks are less nutritious.

Yeah and as I explained, that wasn't evidence for anything that was being discussed. Not only does the nutritional label fail to demonstrate similarity in that specific case but a single instance wouldn't in principle refute a statement of the form "most....X". You claimed I was wrong yet systematically failed to show I was wrong.

The nutritional labels are not designed to demonstrate “similarity” but to show that calcium-fortified plant milks (like Soy) are adequate replacements for dairy milk. Also, you still haven’t provided a lick of evidence that cows milk is “more nutritious than all or even “most” fortified plant-milks. The study you provided compared nutritionally equivalent soy beverages and cows milk, but plant milks have different compounds that inhibit and enhance the absorption of certain nutrients. Soy lacks lactose and casein, and thus must contain higher amount of these nutrients to increase absorption. These drinks are indeed suitable replacements for cows milk.

This is only true for fortified soy milk and this is something I noted early in the conversation.

This is true for fortified soy milk and other appropriately fortified milks, like Protein Nutmilk.

What benefits? Dairy isn't high in sodium or cholesterol and you can get reduced fat (or non-fat) varieties. So what reason is there to believe people are benefited from consuming soy milk rather than dairy? Do you have evidence for this claim?

The benefit is that many plant milks are devoid of sodium, cholesterol and saturated fat, relative to cows milks. This is similar to your claims that cows milk contains “nutritional benefits” like the presence of zinc, calcium, and protein, despite the fact that there are varieties of plant milks that are fortified to contain adequate amounts of these nutrients.

On the contrary, I've noted that Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics is a trade group and isn't an authority on nutritional science. Also the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics does not create their own guidelines but instead refers to the USDA guidelines. So which officials? Public health organizations which are typically either government or university based.

The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics is a trade group of credentialed practitioners; dietitians, nutritionists etc. who have been appropriately trained in nutrition and dietetics, and are absolutely scientific authorities on this topic. It is officially recognized as a professional dietetic organization by the USDA, provides expert testimonies for several governmental bodies) and frequently comment on federal dietary regulations. https://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/dietetic-associations Furthermore, these guidelines you speak of aren’t even developed for the general public; they’re a critical tool to develop federal nutrition and health policies for health professionals, (like those who work for the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics) who in turn help Americans make healthy food choices. Dietetic organizations do not work apart from federal guidelines, they work in conjunction with federal guidelines to design diets that keep Americans healthy. As dietitians who are formally trained and properly credentialed, they are absolutely scientific authorities on the topic.

The use of fortified soy milk as an alternative goes back well beyond the current popularity of plant-based milks and as a result there is a good deal of research on its use. As I suggested earlier, most plant milks aren't even good alternatives "on paper" because they are low in protein or another factor. Protein fortified plant milks are new and lack research so aren't recommended as well. |

Again, you are incorrect. Many protein and calcium-fortified milks are indeed promoted by dietitians as adequate replacement for cows milk. Furthermore, soy milk contains an equivalent amount of protein per cup relative to cows milk, so there’s no disparity there.

And this is actually precisely the problem, namely, "the product can be served or eaten as an equivalent of the other". This is false in the most important sense, namely, nutritionally and this is the danger with referring to mock dairy with their traditional terms.

This is only a problem so long as the manufacturer is not deceptively marketing the product as a nutritional alternative. If they are not nutritionally similar, than it should be made clear by the manufacturer. The concern in this context would be western children, since cow milk is a staple food for them, and plays significant role in protein, calcium, and iodine intake. If your main concern is that only nutritionally equivalent products can be called milk, then there are several varieties of dairy milk (namely goat milk) that should *also* not be defined as milk. Goats milk contains 9 grams of protein per cup, 13% more calcium, 47% more vitamin A, and 134% more potassium. These milks are not nutritionally equivalent, and there exists nutritional disparities, therefore goats milk should not be referred to as “milk.”

The average person isn't knowledgeable about the details of nutrition, their diets are based on various cultural "rules" for food use. You put milk on cereal, you put cheese on a sandwich, etc. These rules aid people in crafting a diet that is balanced without knowing the details of nutrition. |

I already discussed this. It is poor consumer knowledge of basic nutrition, in conjunction with deceptive advertising/marketing toward vegans of plant milks being being nutritionally adequate alternatives to cow milk. Also, these rules do not aid people in crafting a “balanced diet” at all. They exist largely due to culinary preferences; i.e, they taste good. This reflects in nutrition studies. Typical American diets exceed recommended intake levels in sugars, refined grains; sodium, and saturated fat. In fact, 90% of Americans eat more sodium than recommended, and Americans on average eat less than the recommended amounts of vegetables, fruits, whole-grains, and even dairy. https://www.cnpp.usda.gov/dietary-guidelines Yet again, the problem is prevalent for young children, who rely heavily on dairy products as their main source of nutrition in a variety of nutrients. Fortunately however, vegan alternatives can either be fortified with said nutrients, or they can be ingested by other vegan food or vitamin supplements.

This claim is outlandish, mock dairy products are being created to meet a demand not because the businesses want to facilitate people to a plant-based diet. In fact, the businesses would much rather you continue to consume mock dairy products. |

What I am saying is that vegans generally promote and purchase mock meat and mock dairy products because they help to facilitate an easy transition into a plant-based diet. In other words, the goal is to satiate their taste preferences, and make a vegan diet easier to stick to.

Mock products are popular with vegan because people have difficulty changing their food culture. Culture isn't very malleable once you reach adulthood.

Correct. And this shouldn’t be a problem, given that consumers (regardless of diet) are knowledgable enough to get dietary guidelines through other foods and dietary supplements.

That isn't what I claimed but also there are actually some forms of nutrients that cannot readily be fortified.

This depends on the type of fortificant used in the food, not the nutrient itself. For example, soymilks fortified with a particular kind of calcium carbonate fortificant (tcp) yields similar calcium absorption to that of cows milk. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20460239 Some fortiificants tend to settle at the bottom of the container, so that probably isn’t helpful either.

In the case of dairy, the increased bio-availability of nutrients isn't just due to the form of the nutrient but also a variety of co-factors in the milk and there are no synthetic variety of these co-factors that can be added to plant-milks.

Of course the variety of co-factors is different. These milks come from different sources. One contains lactose and casein, the other does not. They may not be completely nutritionally equivalent. The important thing is that despite the differences in mineral composition, soy milks can be fortified to provide an adequate amount of calcium and protein, rendering it a viable alternative to cows milk for children.

My commend had nothing to do with heart disease risk in particular, I just referred to a study on it as an example.

Of course it did. You mentioned specifically “Also research on calcium supplementation, which would include heavy fortification, is looking increasingly grim. For example calcium supplementation has been linked to increased rates of heart disease.” You mentioned this to insinuate that soy milks (which are often heavily fortified with calcium to increase absorption rates) are likely a health concern for vegans, and may put us as risk of developing heart disease. However, you are factually wrong, and there has never been a clear association made between calcium supplementation and heart disease in any study.

The study you cited actually demonstrates my point, the research on calcium supplement has turned increasingly negative which is why the authors conducted the study in the first place.

The study is the most recent comprehensive look at the literate, and confirms that there has been no risk detected.

Also if you look at the study you'll find that they note other negative associations with calcium supplements.

I’m refuting your claim specifically about calcium supplementation and heart disease risk. Nutrition science is a relatively new and complicated field of study and there may be all kinds of risk or benefits of eating a number of fortified foods. With calcium supplements, so long as people are sure to stay within their daily recommended amount, there exists no health risks, and if there are legitimate concerns, they should see their doctor.

Except I implied no such thing, what I claimed was the the safety of calcium supplementation (which would include heavy fortification) is being called into question by recent research. Whether people are at risk when consuming fortified plant-milks hinges on how the research unfolds. But one potential concern is that plant-milks are now being fortified with even more calcium.

The concern, as always, hinges on the full context of one’s diet. You must think most vegans drink heavy amounts of calcium-fortified soy milk? In fact, you keep reminding me that almond milk which is known for being a poor source of calcium, is the most popular kind of milk amongst us, so I’m not sure why you keep feigning some kind of scientific concern for the wellbeing of vegans. If vegans are drinking plant milks as a reliable source of calcium, then they should be limiting their intake of calcium in other foods, and be careful not to exceed the upper limit of their calcium intake. However, many vegans do not rely on plant milks as a main source of calcium, or drink unfortified milks that are are poor sources entirely. You ALSO seem to be forgetting that these milks must contain higher amounts of these nutrients to increase rates of absorption. Vegans may be drinking milks with fa greater amounts, but it doesn’t mean we are absorbing calcium at dangerously high levels from these milks.

[carnap]

You failed to provide evidence that milk contained nutritional advantages, even after being asked.

Except I described clearly what I was speaking of and then supplied evidence when asked. In contrast you've made a number of vague claims and have provided no evidence.

The study shows that calcium unfortified soy milk (or the use of certain fortifications in soy milk) isn’t as bioavailable as cows milk when given equal amounts of minerals.

Increased bio-availability is an obvious nutritional advantage, the fact that you may be able to offset this by increased food intake of fortification doesn't negate this advantage. In fact these are responses to the advantage.

The nutritional labels are not designed to demonstrate “similarity” but to show that calcium-fortified plant milks (like Soy) are adequate replacements for dairy milk.

Nutritional labels have nothing to do with demonstrating that plant-milks are an adequate replacement for milk and if they don't demonstrate similarity how in the world can they demonstrate that one food can be adequately substituted for another? This makes little sense.

This is true for fortified soy milk and other appropriately fortified milks, like Protein Nutmilk.

Public health organizations don't recommend protein fortified "milks" as they aren't researched. You keep repeating this but haven't provided any evidence. Its time for you to actually support what you claim.

The benefit is that many plant milks are devoid of sodium, cholesterol and saturated fat, relative to cows milks. This is similar to your claims that cows milk contains “nutritional benefits” like the presence of zinc, calcium, and protein, despite the fact that there are varieties of plant milks that are fortified to contain adequate amounts of these nutrients.

Not at all, what I spoke about is based on actual evidence what you're talking about is just speculation. Firstly plant-milks aren't devoid of sodium, that is just a falsehood, in fact plant-milks typically have more sodium than milk. Secondly plant-milks aren't devoid of saturated fat, and whether they are lower depends on the type of milk you're looking at (non-fat milk obviously has no saturated fat). That leaves cholesterol, there is no reason to believe that the lack of cholesterol in plant-milk alone would make it more healthful.

To claim that plant-based milks are more healthful than regular milk you'd have to show that replacing regular milk with plant milk results in improved health outcomes. As far as I know there isn't a study that has evaluated this but since you're making the claim surely you know of a study?

The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics is a trade group of credentialed practitioners; dietitians, nutritionists etc. who have been appropriately trained in nutrition and dietetics, and are absolutely scientific authorities on this topic.

Yes, they are a trade group that maintains the very credential in which its practitioners posses. The group has no scientific authority and they don't even craft their own nutritional guidelines. The job of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics is to maintain the trade, its not to conduct and review science.

Again, you are incorrect. Many protein and calcium-fortified milks are indeed promoted by dietitians as adequate replacement for cows milk. Furthermore, soy milk contains an equivalent amount of protein per cup relative to cows milk, so there’s no disparity there.

By all means demonstrate that I'm wrong. An individual dietitian can claim anything they want and that is clearly not what I was speaking of, instead I was speaking of the recommendations of public health organizations.

There is no disparity in the amount of protein but there is a profound disparity in the composition of the beverages and those disparities can have a variety of health outcomes. Soy milk wasn't blindly accepted as an alternative because it had a similar level of protein, it was accepted because it was studied over decades. Of course the fact that it was as traditional beverage of another culture helped as well.

This is only a problem so long as the manufacturer is not deceptively marketing the product as a nutritional alternative. If they are not nutritionally similar, than it should be made clear by the manufacturer.

The point of my argument is that referring to it as "milk" is deceptively marketing it as a product with similar nutritional value because the culture understands "milk" by its context of use which hinges on its nutritional value. And none of the plant-milks in the US make it clear that their products are dissimilar.

What I am saying is that vegans generally promote and purchase mock meat and mock dairy products because they help to facilitate an easy transition into a plant-based diet. In other words, the goal is to satiate their taste preferences, and make a vegan diet easier to stick to.

This makes no sense, mock meat and mock dairy are plant-based foods. Now if by "plant-based" you mean whole foods what reason is there to believe that people are eating these to transition to a whole foods based diet? Your comment is either incoherent or lacks evidence.

Correct. And this shouldn’t be a problem, given that consumers (regardless of diet) are knowledgable enough to get dietary guidelines through other foods and dietary supplements.

And the issue here is that the antecedent is obviously false.

Of course it did. You mentioned specifically “Also research on calcium supplementation, which would include heavy fortification, is looking increasingly grim. For example calcium supplementation has been linked to increased rates of heart disease.”

You need to make a better effort to comprehend the logical structure of what you're responding to. The first sentence was the general point, the secondly was obviously intended as an example. After all, is started with "For example".

I’m refuting your claim specifically about calcium supplementation and heart disease risk. Nutrition science is a relatively new and complicated field of study and there may be all kinds of risk or benefits of eating a number of fortified foods.

You refuted a claim I didn't make, again, I never presented the research as conclusive and merely claimed that there are links. There are a number of studies that have found an association.

Vegans may be drinking milks with fa greater amounts, but it doesn’t mean we are absorbing calcium at dangerously high levels from these milks.

The calcium itself isn't the issue but how its packaged. For example calcium phosphate (the form in milk) has a lot different properties as calcium bicarbonate, for example, the latter works as an anti-acid while the former does not. As I noted earlier, "nutrients" are a lot more complex than you're making them. Fortified nutrients are often different in significant ways than the ones naturally in food. That doesn't, in itself, mean they are unhealthy but it does mean you cannot make false equivalences between them.

[cornivore]

I think this pretty much speaks for itself (along with its 196 references), the only reason to plan on drinking the fortified milks for nutrition would be as an optional supplement, not as a priority:

Plant-based nutrition for healthcare professionals: implementing diet as a primary modality in the prevention and treatment of chronic disease

Food group
Fortified plant milks (e.g., almond, soy, rice)

Recommended servings per day
Optional, 2–3 cups

However, they don't consider cow's milk an option for the prevention of chronic disease. So it's clear that they consider plant milk to be healthier.

Plant-based diets are associated with lowering overall mortality and ischemic heart disease mortality; reducing medication needs; supporting sustainable weight management; reducing incidence and severity of high-risk conditions, such as obesity and obesity-related inflammatory markers, hyperglycemia, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia; and even reversing advanced cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes.

These advantages are likely the result of both the consistent consumption of innate health-promoting compounds found in whole plant foods and the reduction of exposure to harmful substances found in animal products and highly processed foods. Meat (including processed, red, and white assortments), fish, dairy, and eggs contain health-damaging saturated fats, heme iron, N-glycolylneuraminic acid (Neu5Gc), carnitine, and chemical contaminants formed when flesh is cooked, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, heterocyclic amines, and advanced glycation end products.

Why? Because cow's milk is not a basis of nutrition for disease prevention, especially because it can contribute to disease more so than it contributes to nutrition.

Okay, I'm giving geriatric cardiology the 'last word' because "cardiovascular disease remains the world's leading cause of death", and is "influenced predominantly by diet".

[carnap]

I think this pretty much speaks for itself (along with its 196 references), the only reason to plan on drinking the fortified milks for nutrition would be as an optional supplement, not as a priority:

However, they don't consider cow's milk an option for the prevention of chronic disease. So it's clear that they consider plant milk to be healthier.

Yes, "they", as in the two authors of the paper. I don't think what they would say is obvious but it also doesn't matter, its just their opinion on the matter. Without research that has looked at the impact of substituting plant milks for regular milk there isn't much you can say beyond speculation.

Though I've never suggested that dairy is some how a dietary requirement in the human diet, just that its an important component of the western diet and replacing it with mock foods is problematic.

Diet plays a big role in heart disease but there is no reason to believe vegan diets have any edge over healthy eating patterns that include animal products. The only research on this are observational studies that compare vegans to the general population who don't even come close to following dietary guidelines. But there is a total lack of research on the impact of substituting mock foods for meat, dairy, etc.

There is a reason why public health organizations aren't recommending vegan diets, namely, the evidence doesn't warrant such a recommendation.

[cornivore]

Without research...

If you don't have any reading comprehension, obviously citing every research paper in the world won't help you understand, but I think you're just being ridiculous (or maybe you're malnourished). For that matter, the western diet is notoriously unhealthy, and to say its components are important is equally uninformed. Like I said, I'm giving geriatric cardiology the 'last word' because "cardiovascular disease remains the world's leading cause of death", and is "influenced predominantly by diet". That isn't an opinion, it's a statistic. I think it bears repeating, because it still happens every day, or more like every 30 seconds (but as long as people can take two cows down with them, when they die every half a minute, I guess that's like counting sheep). Well, I'm not going to count all the milk I don't drink, because I'm not missing anything.

[carnap]

If you don't have any reading comprehension, obviously citing every research paper in the world won't help you understand, but I think you're just being ridiculous (or maybe you're malnourished).

Perhaps you should address what I actually said rather than resort to insults? Here is my comment:

"Without research that has looked at the impact of substituting plant milks for regular milk there isn't much you can say beyond speculation. "

The article posted cites no such research.

For that matter, the western diet is notoriously unhealthy, and to say its components are important is equally uninformed.

The "western diet" refers to a board class of eating patterns and its by no means the case that they are all "notoriously unhealthy". For example the Mediterranean diet is a western eating pattern that is promoted as healthful by every public health organization. On the other hand the dominate eating pattern in the United States is problematic health-wise but that doesn't define the "western diet". Its typically referred to as the SAD diet.

In any case, dairy is an important component of the western diet because its a important source of some key nutrients. As such it has to be replaced carefully, this is something even vegan health professionals note so its a bit strange that so many vegans fight the topic.

Like I said, I'm giving geriatric cardiology the 'last word' because "cardiovascular disease remains the world's leading cause of death", and is "influenced predominantly by diet". That isn't an opinion, it's a statistic.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Groups dedicated to cardiovascular health don't promote vegan diets nor do they recommend eliminating all animal products. Cardiovascular disease is strongly associated with diet but there are many dietary factors which includes foods of both animal and plant origin.

[cornivore]

Perhaps you should address what I actually said...

Pretty much all you're saying is that no research has been done, no matter how much research has been done (I guess that's about all it takes for an endless argument to continue, judging by the length of the flat earth discussion). Here's some more research for you to deny though. Not for the sake of argument, I was interested in this for another topic, but some of it applies here too, FYI.

The Western dietary pattern of intake common to many Americans is high in fat, refined carbohydrates, sodium, and phosphorus, all of which are associated with processed food consumption and higher risk of life-threatening chronic diseases.

The evidence of increasing phosphorus intake is clear, with more compounds being added to the food supply and more foods consumed as processed or pre-prepared, and the risk of exceeding the current upper intake level is feasible for large segments of the population. Beyond that, there is accumulating evidence that both the high intakes and the poor balance of intake with other nutrients may place individuals at risk of kidney disease, bone loss, cardiovascular disease, and other chronic health conditions.

Milk and dairy were the greatest contributors of phosphorus from various food categories.

—Assessing the Health Impact of Phosphorus in the Food Supply

Go ahead and deny that the western diet is unhealthy too, even though that's basically its definition in the medical literature. Obviously people would have to be in denial to eat this shit nowdays, so it's no wonder...

[carnap]

Pretty much all you're saying is that no research has been done, no matter how much research has been done (I guess that's about all it takes for an endless argument to continue, judging by the length of the flat earth discussion).

That is "pretty much all I'm saying" if you're pretty much just creating a straw-man. I was rather specific in my comment about the sort of research I was speaking about, namely, research that looked at the impact of substituting plant-based milks for regular milk. Nobody in this thread referred to research of this character so to claim I'm denying research is nonsense.

Milk and dairy were the greatest contributors of phosphorus from various food categories.

Except they aren't. For example one cup of cooked red lentils has around 360 mg of phosphorus where as a cup of whole milk has 220 mg. Even if you adjust for calories they are around the same.

Furthermore you seem to be trying to distort this study as an argument against dairy but its no such thing, the study is primarily about the increased use of phosphate in processed foods (plant milks and other mock products are processed foods). It also notes that high phosphate intake is most problematic when calcium intake is low. Dairy has a balanced ratio of phosphate to calcium (close to 1:1 ratio), in this sense the plant foods high in phosphate like legumes and nuts are more problematic.

Go ahead and deny that the western diet is unhealthy too, even though that's basically its definition in the medical literature.

You totally ignored everything I said. Saying the "western diet is unhealthy" makes little sense because "western diet" refers to a broad class of diets. The current western style diet that is common in the United States is unhealthy, that diet is marked by a high intake of processed foods. But dietary patterns like the Nordic diet and Mediterranean diet are healthful and are also examples of western diets.