Healthy eating and living and not just nutritional yeast

Apr 7, 2014
4,867
1,778
No we don't agree. The very paper you quoted says to be wary of the results, as there are multiple issues. First of all it's a cohort study based off self reporting. About the most unreliable way of proving causation over correlation as you can get. It's not worthless, and it is interesting, but it has multiple issues which the authors themselves acknowledge. The jury is out on that. But then you were the one bragging about the calcium in almond milk, even though it's added in, is in most cases rock form which is less digestible, and now you're shitting on calcium's nutritional worth.

Basically, you're googling as you go along. Started off thinking calcium was a good thing to prove the greater worth of almond milk, got told it was added in and likely to be less bioavailable, went off and looked for something to criticise milk on and found something that was based on calcium and osteoporosis, so suddenly that's your focus.

Vitamin B12, Protein, Iodine...all higher in milk. Moreover, the study you linked is based around galactose being problematic and thus it could offset calcium benefits. At the very beginning of this exchange, I said "You can get lactose free milk". Well lactose free milk is also free of galactose, as galactose is one component of lactose. So again, you could avoid any possible negatives from that compound by having lactose free milk that would then also contain far more nutritional value than almond milk.
No, what happened here is that you posted something about whole milk being better than skim milk and then made the broad stroke of claiming it was better than almond milk. You then started bleating about the calcium content of milk, which is not only lower per calorie than the brand of almond milk in my refrigerator, but also has no basis in preventing osteoporosis (isn’t that the point?).

I haven’t mentioned what the article I posted found. I may go pubmed later and show you different studies that can’t prove shit about the benefits of drinking milk—this is coming from a billion dollar industry.

What you’re learning against your will here is that an animal product that wasn’t consumed until agriculture was created and that must have its enzymes denatured—which would serve purposes in nourishing a baby cow—and fortified with an enzyme produced by bacteria that isn’t found in the average adult’s gut in great enough number before it’s reasonably safe for human consumption may not be all that great for you despite the numbers you read off a nutrition label. And most of those cows are injected with hormones and fed a poisonous diet to begin with.
 

thehook13

‪#‎Pray4Khan‬
May 16, 2013
62,814
14,600
Things I do for health..... Not a lot really, basic stuff but I only get sick once a year and no medical problems.

  • Eat between 12am-8pm strictly. Or 3pm-11pm on night shift. Been doing this for 5 monthes and can't see it changing in the near future...
  • This usually leads to 3+ litres of water per day and many cups of green tea
  • 3-4 times a week I do my 5k run or do the hill section for 20 minutes. Planning to beef up the exercise again soon. Either boxing gym or BJJ
  • I try to cycle around as much as possible. Although I have a mad car I love to drive... hard decision that one.
  • Balance the diet out a bit although i am a sucker for junk food. The next day is usually filled with steamed vegies, lean meats.
  • Restrict carbs and sugar intake. Bad habits come back but which is okay, balance and shit...
  • Carby foods tend to fuck up my digestion so I have some psyllium fiber or chia recipe. Solid turds>>>>
  • Lots of fruit and yogurt especially banana. As you get a little older looking after your stomach is key to overall well being.
Occasionally I do 24 hour fast which seems to help reset the body. Don't ask me the science behind.... it just helps somehow.

Ummm not much else really. Exercise, water and balanced diet. Been going well so far... 30 y.o

edit-

I admit I take a mild interest in skincare. It's massively underrated tbh. There is a charcoal face wash i use in the shower maybe 3 times a week and my soap is charcoal as well. call me a cunt if you like but it fucking works!
 
Last edited:
Jun 4, 2012
28,106
18,607
No, what happened here is that you posted something about whole milk being better than skim milk and then made the broad stroke of claiming it was better than almond milk. You then started bleating about the calcium content of milk, which is not only lower per calorie than the brand of almond milk in my refrigerator, but also has no basis in preventing osteoporosis (isn’t that the point?).
No. You jumped in and started talking bollocks about people drinking things in history. So they were drinking almond milk were they? No. The main thing that I spoke of for health was iodine. Not calcium. You have then quoted that almond milk has more calcium, before then arguing that calcium does no good. :lol:

Almond milk contains next to no calcium. It is ADDED. It is usually from a rock source, and added vitamins and minerals are almost never as effective as those from a natural source. The protein and iodine issues alone make it more beneficial than almond milk.

The paper you linked to focused ENTIRELY on the negative impact of galactose, which isn't even present in lactose free milk that you could choose.

You're bullshitting about a topic you've proven to not know much about, and the sad thing is that even if you want to choose a non dairy milk, almond is not remotely the best of those options either. Anyway, carry on linking articles you either haven't bothered to actually read or don't really understand, I'm not wasting any more time with you.
 
Reactions: Brighton Bomber

thehook13

‪#‎Pray4Khan‬
May 16, 2013
62,814
14,600
Almond milk is a bit of a scam I hear.... unless you're specifically after a non dairy (for some reason), which there are other alternatives anyway. if you like the taste then just buy what you want.

It's basically a litre of water washed through barely a handful of almonds. Nothing special at all. Additives and shit included in but that doesn't make it some miracle milk.
 
Last edited:

thehook13

‪#‎Pray4Khan‬
May 16, 2013
62,814
14,600
Yeah I have hardly eaten a breakfast for the last 20 years. I just don't like eating within a couple of hours of getting up.

It's almost 1am here. I woke up at 9:30pm, ate a handful of trail mix (assorted nuts, dried fruit and chocolate) when I got to work, now I'm waiting on my first break so I can grill some chicken breast and make a wrap. And I'm juuuuuust starting to get hungry. I can't understand these people who wake up and 20 minutes later they're gorging themselves on eggs, cereal, toast, bacon, baked beans or whatever. Makes me feel out and out sick, eating like that as soon as I wake up.

:hat
People are addicted to food that's all I can say. They are tethered to eating like a ball and chain. Watch them become stressed out, paniced if they don't have immediate access to their lunch or something in a short amount of time. I'm not sure if it's blood sugar related or if it's ingrain psychological dependence. Since restricting my eating to a window that fact is clear as day now. I work in a depot full of big eaters, I can now go a day without eating if I want to and I'm a solid build person normal requirements like anyone. Breakfast is a waste now and if I had those eggs, bacon etc like you say I would uncomfortable all day and wouldn't eat again until dinner.

I have been told small portions over the day is better but I don't manage food enough to care about preparing 6-8 meals.
 
Last edited:
Apr 7, 2014
4,867
1,778
No. You jumped in and started talking bollocks about people drinking things in history. So they were drinking almond milk were they? No. The main thing that I spoke of for health was iodine. Not calcium. You have then quoted that almond milk has more calcium, before then arguing that calcium does no good. :lol:

Almond milk contains next to no calcium. It is ADDED. It is usually from a rock source, and added vitamins and minerals are almost never as effective as those from a natural source. The protein and iodine issues alone make it more beneficial than almond milk.

The paper you linked to focused ENTIRELY on the negative impact of galactose, which isn't even present in lactose free milk that you could choose.

You're bullshitting about a topic you've proven to not know much about, and the sad thing is that even if you want to choose a non dairy milk, almond is not remotely the best of those options either. Anyway, carry on linking articles you either haven't bothered to actually read or don't really understand, I'm not wasting any more time with you.
I never said calcium does no good. I said milk isn't associated with reduced osteoporosis. That is a milk issue, not a calcium issue.

You also talk about iodine. Goiter is almost nonexistent in the first world and there is no serious problem with iodine intake. It's basically forced into the diet and a nonissue for first world countries.

We both know it sounds ridiculous to claim that something that is excreted from a poisoned mammal, denatured, and injected with an enzyme produced by bacteria scare in the gut of most adults is health food.

The nutrient profile (high vitamin D and calcium) coupled with an apparent positive correlation with osteoporosis is one of many red flags. You think it's galactose? I guess you'd consider it healthier to further process the milk; no possible negative outcome there.

Here's one that you might enjoy debunking:


Milk exosome component

Potential pathogenic involvement

miR-148a

Atherosclerosis, obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus, hyperphagia, prostate cancer, breast cancer, hepatitis B-associated hepatocellular carcinoma, osteoporosis

miR-21

Adipogenesis, fetal macrosomia, prostate cancer, breast cancer, osteoporosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma

miR-29b

Type 2 diabetes mellitus

miR-155

Breast cancer, hepatitis C-associated hepatocellular carcinoma, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, Parkinson’s disease, prostate cancer

TGF-β

Breast cancer, prostate cancer, osteoclastogenesis

Exosome lipids

Parkinson’s disease

 
May 25, 2013
5,851
2,314
I never said calcium does no good. I said milk isn't associated with reduced osteoporosis. That is a milk issue, not a calcium issue.

You also talk about iodine. Goiter is almost nonexistent in the first world and there is no serious problem with iodine intake. It's basically forced into the diet and a nonissue for first world countries.

We both know it sounds ridiculous to claim that something that is excreted from a poisoned mammal, denatured, and injected with an enzyme produced by bacteria scare in the gut of most adults is health food.

The nutrient profile (high vitamin D and calcium) coupled with an apparent positive correlation with osteoporosis is one of many red flags. You think it's galactose? I guess you'd consider it healthier to further process the milk; no possible negative outcome there.

Here's one that you might enjoy debunking:


Milk exosome component

Potential pathogenic involvement

miR-148a

Atherosclerosis, obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus, hyperphagia, prostate cancer, breast cancer, hepatitis B-associated hepatocellular carcinoma, osteoporosis

miR-21

Adipogenesis, fetal macrosomia, prostate cancer, breast cancer, osteoporosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma

miR-29b

Type 2 diabetes mellitus

miR-155

Breast cancer, hepatitis C-associated hepatocellular carcinoma, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, Parkinson’s disease, prostate cancer

TGF-β

Breast cancer, prostate cancer, osteoclastogenesis

Exosome lipids

Parkinson’s disease

Haven't read article, most of it is gibberish to me as it's written for someone with a background in this area and not for the lay person like myself. Seems to be a bunch of other studies thrown together linking in "potential" risks, potential being the key word. I assume in science it has the same meaning outside of science, so this is hardly conclusive proof, just highlighting possible risks that may need further research.

Any food item can be labelled unhealthy and be linked to certain health risks for any group. People been hating on whole grains a lot recently because of Phytic acid being an anti-nutrient but doesn't change the fact that whole grains have been linked to reducing cardio vascular disease. Even the Banana of late has been hated on, because of it's high sugar content compared to other fruits and because of it's high potassium levels which lets be honest most people don't get enough of.

The whole anti milk movement of late to me seems coincidentally beneficial for these companies producing milk alternatives. Nutritionally these alternative milks are worse than normal milk, no study can deny that unless of course you fortify the non dairy alternative which is never going to be good as a natural source.

Until I see definitive proof milk is bad for us then I'll keep consuming it and there is no definitive proof at this time, just a bunch of studies linking possible risks that haven't been proved or scaremongering such as talk of pus in milk while happily ignoring things like the minimum cockroach level in certain foods. Fact is the way we produced food so intensively will always lead to some small level of contamination, question is, is it a risk and if not then why stop consuming it.
 
Reactions: Strike
Jun 4, 2012
28,106
18,607
Haven't read article, most of it is gibberish to me as it's written for someone with a background in this area and not for the lay person like myself. Seems to be a bunch of other studies thrown together linking in "potential" risks, potential being the key word. I assume in science it has the same meaning outside of science, so this is hardly conclusive proof, just highlighting possible risks that may need further research.

Any food item can be labelled unhealthy and be linked to certain health risks for any group. People been hating on whole grains a lot recently because of Phytic acid being an anti-nutrient but doesn't change the fact that whole grains have been linked to reducing cardio vascular disease. Even the Banana of late has been hated on, because of it's high sugar content compared to other fruits and because of it's high potassium levels which lets be honest most people don't get enough of.

The whole anti milk movement of late to me seems coincidentally beneficial for these companies producing milk alternatives. Nutritionally these alternative milks are worse than normal milk, no study can deny that unless of course you fortify the non dairy alternative which is never going to be good as a natural source.

Until I see definitive proof milk is bad for us then I'll keep consuming it and there is no definitive proof at this time, just a bunch of studies linking possible risks that haven't been proved or scaremongering such as talk of pus in milk while happily ignoring things like the minimum cockroach level in certain foods. Fact is the way we produced food so intensively will always lead to some small level of contamination, question is, is it a risk and if not then why stop consuming it.
Exactly. One of the authors has almost exclusively authored papers attacking milk too. One of which was funded by Nestle. Doesn't discredit this paper, but worth thinking about. The paper in question also links to other papers that contradict the overall argument. One is a meta-analysis of milk on colorectal cancer and it shows a PROTECTIVE impact from milk consumption. The paper does mention this, but then skips past it to continue looking at potential problems.

Some of it looks interesting, and I will look into it further by asking for help from people who work in biochemistry etc to help me (a layperson) sift through some of the technical parts that I don't get.

That's what an objective, intellectually honest person does. Not what someone like Knox would do, who is busy googling for papers to support his stance and then posting them as if he understands deeply the role of microRNA's in oncology and has a strong grasp of exosomes. :lol: From a guy whose initial argument was "milk is pasteurised" and didn't seem to even realise that so is his precious almond milk, so is fruit juice and most eggs in the US too. A guy who then argued that milk was not consumed in most of human history, while at the same time promoting almond milk. :lol:

You can see why I'm not wasting any time trying to have a reasonable discussion with him.
 
Apr 7, 2014
4,867
1,778
Haven't read article, most of it is gibberish to me as it's written for someone with a background in this area and not for the lay person like myself. Seems to be a bunch of other studies thrown together linking in "potential" risks, potential being the key word. I assume in science it has the same meaning outside of science, so this is hardly conclusive proof, just highlighting possible risks that may need further research.

Any food item can be labelled unhealthy and be linked to certain health risks for any group. People been hating on whole grains a lot recently because of Phytic acid being an anti-nutrient but doesn't change the fact that whole grains have been linked to reducing cardio vascular disease. Even the Banana of late has been hated on, because of it's high sugar content compared to other fruits and because of it's high potassium levels which lets be honest most people don't get enough of.

The whole anti milk movement of late to me seems coincidentally beneficial for these companies producing milk alternatives. Nutritionally these alternative milks are worse than normal milk, no study can deny that unless of course you fortify the non dairy alternative which is never going to be good as a natural source.

Until I see definitive proof milk is bad for us then I'll keep consuming it and there is no definitive proof at this time, just a bunch of studies linking possible risks that haven't been proved or scaremongering such as talk of pus in milk while happily ignoring things like the minimum cockroach level in certain foods. Fact is the way we produced food so intensively will always lead to some small level of contamination, question is, is it a risk and if not then why stop consuming it.
The article is talking about mRNA that is able to survive milk processing and be transferred to humans. mRNA, in this case, is something that enters into a cell and dictates what proteins are made. The article is saying that mRNA from milk is interfering with processes in humans.

I posted the study earlier about milk being linked to osteoporosis despite having high calcium. This article is showing that cow's milk contains specific mRNA sequences which are transferred to humans and promote osteoclasts, which break down bone and cause osteoporosis, when they are more active than osteoblasts which build.

Milk contains a bunch of mRNA which would normally be transferred to a baby cow to help it develop. What's happening is that it's being transferred to humans. That doesn't really happen with other foods.
 
Apr 7, 2014
4,867
1,778
Exactly. One of the authors has almost exclusively authored papers attacking milk too. One of which was funded by Nestle. Doesn't discredit this paper, but worth thinking about. The paper in question also links to other papers that contradict the overall argument. One is a meta-analysis of milk on colorectal cancer and it shows a PROTECTIVE impact from milk consumption. The paper does mention this, but then skips past it to continue looking at potential problems.

Some of it looks interesting, and I will look into it further by asking for help from people who work in biochemistry etc to help me (a layperson) sift through some of the technical parts that I don't get.

That's what an objective, intellectually honest person does. Not what someone like Knox would do, who is busy googling for papers to support his stance and then posting them as if he understands deeply the role of microRNA's in oncology and has a strong grasp of exosomes. :lol: From a guy whose initial argument was "milk is pasteurised" and didn't seem to even realise that so is his precious almond milk, so is fruit juice and most eggs in the US too. A guy who then argued that milk was not consumed in most of human history, while at the same time promoting almond milk. :lol:

You can see why I'm not wasting any time trying to have a reasonable discussion with him.
I do have a biology degree from one of the best science schools in the United States.
 
Jun 4, 2012
28,106
18,607
I do have a biology degree from one of the best science schools in the United States.
Well, I'll assume you are telling the truth and say fair enough, you're more qualified than I am on the topic at hand. I find it odd that you've therefore allowed such clear bias to cloud your judgement to the point that you're ignoring problems with the first paper and posting it as some sort of proof and that you've posted the second one as proof when it's clear even to me that it involves a fair amount of speculation, bypasses the very contradictory data it references and has an author who seems obsessed with milk.

Assuming this paper is flawless, it doesn't alter the fact that you abandoned logic and consistency by using pasteurisation as a criticism, when almond milk and multiple other foods are treated the same.

It's odd that your first post was just about lactose intolerance too, and yet we've gone down a road in which you appear to be adding new angles whenever a previous one doesn't hold weight.

That said, I'm open minded and interested in potential risks with any food, and I'll look into the specifics of this paper further (with some technical assistance) and see if the methods and data hold up. If they do, I'll look to reduce milk intake, while having full fat milk as the version that I opt for when consuming it.
 
Apr 7, 2014
4,867
1,778
Well, I'll assume you are telling the truth and say fair enough, you're more qualified than I am on the topic at hand. I find it odd that you've therefore allowed such clear bias to cloud your judgement to the point that you're ignoring problems with the first paper and posting it as some sort of proof and that you've posted the second one as proof when it's clear even to me that it involves a fair amount of speculation, bypasses the very contradictory data it references and has an author who seems obsessed with milk.

Assuming this paper is flawless, it doesn't alter the fact that you abandoned logic and consistency by using pasteurisation as a criticism, when almond milk and multiple other foods are treated the same.

It's odd that your first post was just about lactose intolerance too, and yet we've gone down a road in which you appear to be adding new angles whenever a previous one doesn't hold weight.

That said, I'm open minded and interested in potential risks with any food, and I'll look into the specifics of this paper further (with some technical assistance) and see if the methods and data hold up. If they do, I'll look to reduce milk intake, while having full fat milk as the version that I opt for when consuming it.
Milk contains enzymes that would do things like allow a baby cow to better absorb the nutrients in it. Enzymes like those would be destroyed by pasteurization.

That doesn't apply to almond milk. It's a more simple food that wouldn't be loaded with enzymes and mRNA/exosomes.
 
Jun 4, 2012
28,106
18,607
Milk contains enzymes that would do things like allow a baby cow to better absorb the nutrients in it. Enzymes like those would be destroyed by pasteurization.

That doesn't apply to almond milk. It's a more simple food that wouldn't be loaded with enzymes and mRNA/exosomes.
Your initial post on pasteurisation was simply that it was a process and you used it as an example of it not being natural. Like you posted an article all about galactose when I'd pointed out you could have lactose free milk.

You've jumped all over the place.

According to your latest paper fermented milk is ideal. None of the issues it reports for regular milk. In fact UHT is alright too, as it destroys the exosomes, while giving the protection to colorectal cancer reported by milk consumption.

I've no investment in this whereas it's pretty clear you do for whatever reason, which is how you ended up citing a paper as proof around osteoporosis, when the paper's own authors cautioned against making strong conclusions from the data and highlighted some potential problems with it.
 
Last edited:
Apr 7, 2014
4,867
1,778
Your initial post on pasteurisation was simply that it was a process and you used it as an example of it not being natural. Like you posted an article all about galactose when I'd pointed out you could have lactose free milk.

You've jumped all over the place.

According to your latest paper fermented milk is ideal. None of the issues it reports for regular milk. In fact UHT is alright too, as it destroys the exosomes, while giving the protection to colorectal cancer reported by milk consumption.

I've no investment in this whereas it's pretty clear you do for whatever reason, which is how you ended up citing a paper as proof around osteoporosis, when the paper's own authors cautioned against making strong conclusions from the data and highlighted some potential problems with it.
You do have an investment. You jumped from a paper claiming whole milk was better than skim milk to saying it was better than almond milk. I’m just moving the goal posts as to why that isn’t a reasonable conclusion to make, given that milk is more complicated for health than it would appear at surface level.
 
May 25, 2013
5,851
2,314
The article is talking about mRNA that is able to survive milk processing and be transferred to humans. mRNA, in this case, is something that enters into a cell and dictates what proteins are made. The article is saying that mRNA from milk is interfering with processes in humans.

I posted the study earlier about milk being linked to osteoporosis despite having high calcium. This article is showing that cow's milk contains specific mRNA sequences which are transferred to humans and promote osteoclasts, which break down bone and cause osteoporosis, when they are more active than osteoblasts which build.

Milk contains a bunch of mRNA which would normally be transferred to a baby cow to help it develop. What's happening is that it's being transferred to humans. That doesn't really happen with other foods.
Ok thanks for that explanation, that makes it clearer as to what the article is saying, but still just because cows milk mRNA may alter gene expression is that a bad thing, from what I've read breast milk also contains mRNA that could alter gene expression, should we stop feeding babies breast milk even though it's linked to countless benefits because of a possible change in gene expression? Alterations in gene expression can be beneficial for health, so while yes cows milk may indeed alter our genes we don't even know if it's negatively or positively?

As for Osteoporosis and there being no link to calcium consumption, did that study also factor in Vitamin D which most people are deficient in and which is required for calcium to be properly utilised for improving bone health. Doesn't matter how much calcium you consume if your vitamin D deficient.

I'm pretty sure I've read articles before about food choices effecting genes so I don't believe cows milk is the only food we consume that has bioactive compounds, so again what's the big deal? We don't know if mRNA does effect gene expression negatively or not and even if it does, cows milk is just one in likely a number of foods we consume that does this.