You're viewing part of a thread.
I drink milk, but milk isn't superior to oat milk.
mammal milk has specific ingredients that are meant to specifically feed infants of that animal. So its often high in fat and has specific things that are meant to be digested by that animal. Breast milk from a human has special ingredients that help digest the high lactose content and those ingredients are not in other milks.
Now Oats have been designed over years to be digested by humans and other animals. They propagate by being consumed and then travel to other areas post consumption. The nutrition in oats and other vegetables is mostly there specifically to drive animals like us to eat them so that we propagate them.
Of course proper milk is superior to oat milk.
If you were stuck on a desert island and could have an infinite supply of either it would be an absurdity to choose the oat milk over cows milk.
It's true that cows milk is intended for calves and it's probably not advisable for an adult human to consume exclusively cows milk, but it's an absurdity to claim that cows milk is less nutritionally valuable than oat milk.
Oats have been domesticated by humans over a few short millennia because of their ease of cultivation and longevity in storage. Lets not conflate convenience with nutritional quality. Besides which oat milk doesn't contain much in the way of oats anyway.
Given the percentage of lactose intolerance, in some cultures as high as 100 percent and globally at 65 percent, for most people you would have to be an idiot to choose cows milk.
You're talking about malabsorbtion, not intolerance, which is not the same. Most people with the former do not suffer from the latter.
Nope. I am talking about intolerance. Exactly as it is defined.
God this is tedious.
Of those 65% you're describing as "lactose intolerant", only a small percentage would suffer symtoms commonly associated with lactose intolerance deleterious enough to make flavored oily water a better source of nutrition than cows milk.
In any case, while I look forward to your parting salvo of blistering intellect and insight, I believe I have said all I care to regarding grain-based milk substitutes for the time being. Good day.
Of course proper milk is superior to oat milk.
In terms of ecological footprint it really isn't. There, cow milk or any other animal milk is waaay worse than oat milk.
Furthermore, doesn't oat milk usually have a higher shelf life than typical animal milk like those from cows?
Lets not conflate convenience with nutritional quality.
As far as I know the one thing that cow milk has in terms of better nutritional quality compared to oat milk for example are high quality proteins, covering all essential amino acids. However, if you are not dependend on that intake of protein by drinking a glass of milk each day, due to other protein sources in your diet, then there is not really much more value to cow milk. Since soy milk has a higher amount of protein than oat milk, one could also prefer that over cow milk, which would still lower carbon emissions. Not as much as with oat milk though.
animal milk is waaay worse than oat milk.
I don't know if this can be substantiated
this relies on poore-nemecek 2018. I don't find this to be a good source. do you have another?
Bullshit that it is not a good source, there is wide scientific consensus dairy is much more taxing for the environment. Only valid counter argument is that milk has more nutritional value, but this can easily be fixed by adding additional ingredients.
This graph shows soy is the clear winner across the board if you set off protein to g co2, but purely per glass cow milk is much more taxing for the environment as both graphs show
this analysis suffers from the same flawed methodology present in poore_nemecek 2018: they combine LCA studies, which cannot be done because the data is gathered using disparate methodology. to make matters worse, they didn't actually do all his work themselves; they pulled in poore-nemecek as one of their references.
Don't see you providing any sources mate
The sources are in the references to the papers that you're presenting. The LCA studies themselves often come with a warning that it shouldn't be combined with other LCA studies, but poore-nemecek actually took an even lazier approach were they compiled meta studies that were ignoring this guidance and didn't actually source many if any LCA studies themselves. when reading the meta studies that they gathered, you can see that all of them say that LCA guidance discourages combining studies as they have done, but they're just going to do it anyway.
it's bad science.
I don't need sources to be skeptical. you made a claim. I'm asking you to support that claim with good science.
