Soy Milk is good.

Soy milk taste like shit. Simple as that. I drink milk, I'm over 40 and I LOOK 30. (Might be the milk, might be the whiskey and cigs). I drink milk because I want to. I like the taste of it, and it go with some foods better than any other beverage I can think of, cake or cookies being an example. I also eat meat... If you have ever seen cows teeth, or horse teeth... then you will know what teeth look like in an animal thats spouse to only eat veggies. Do a little simple comparison of our teeth to other animals in nature, they are more like dog teeth, lion teeth and other "meat" eaters. Point made. If you somehow believe otherwise... fine. Eat you veggies and leave the steak for me.

http://www.psych.utah.edu/~sc4002/ps...ll_farside.jpg

8th Continent Chocolate Soy Milk is good. Milk has puss in it:)

i agree :2 cents:

I wonder who was the first person to discover how to milk a cow.

And what the hell did he think he was doing in the first place ??

I have not drank milk for 32 years and it has had no effect on my health.
I do eat cheese though cause it taste good.

Cheese is concentrated pus:) Though it is great on pizza.

No, it's not.

The ignorance displayed in this thread (in some cases) continues to confound me.

serious? didnt know that

The thing is... no one _knows_ what causes autism right now... there are _many _speculations, though... and I'm guessing this is one.

oh boy, intelligence and logic wise this thread has gone downhill.

:1orglaugh

Milk itself is not linked to autism. It is the by-product of an allergic reaction to milk (and gluten) that is linked to autism.

So avoiding milk because some people are allergic to it would be like avoiding peanuts, nuts, eggs, wheat and fish because some people are allergic to them.

It was a joke:)

Anyway, milk and cheese are not good for you, if you have too much of it. Neither is getting drunk or smoking pot. 2 people died in my area last week from drinking bad milk. Whittier Farms Milk, it's good, most of the time.

http://www.milforddailynews.com/homepage/x2133873242

Ahh. OK.

Cheese as cultivated pus, though?

:upsidedow

I got it from here

"Ten pounds of milk are used to make one pound of cheese. Cheese is concentrated pus."

"the average liter of milk in America contained only 323 million pus cells"

" USDA does not allow milk containing 750 million or more pus cells per liter to be shipped across state borders."

It's all true, and a little gross, but that's not why I don't drink milk.

Gluten allergies suck.

So many people - unable to drink beer.

:(

If you're talking about a reaction to gluten (as indicative of autism), my past bit of study on the subject told me that gluten allergies are, generally, rare... are generally genetically limited to Scandinavian blood-lines, and affect one's life much more significantly than just in the case of milk. For instance, most grains would also need to be removed from the kid's diet.

cats drink milk all the time..

Ahhhh... got it, now. :)

Still... if ya realize that there are approx 500 million pus cells in a single drop of pus... maybe that'd put it a bit more in perspective and lessen the "gross factor" for ya a bit.

I think there's more fecal matter allowed in a box of cheerios. :winkwink:


edit: And... 100 lactose-tolerant/intolerant peeps (mentally, anyways). :-)

Gluten isn't in milk - gluten is in grain products (wheat, barley, rye, etc).

But both milk protein and gluten allergies have been linked to autism.

I agree - if a milk allergy is suspected then people should not give infants cow's milk.

There are more problems with milk than just pus.

http://proliberty.com/observer/20000208.htm

You're right there.

I assumed CH was on target... seemed reasonable, as Cows eat a lot of grain.. and if they're eating it, it'd make sense that it stuck around for milk...

After taking a moment to look it up, seems gluten is (maybe) found in only the following milk products: sour cream commercial chocolate milk and drinks, non-dairy creamers, some cheese products, yogurt; and gluten is certainly found in any malted product.

Still, if milk allergies have been linked to autism, that'd bring us back to his first point... let's get our babies tested for milk allergies before we shove the stuff down their throat.

And if they don't have milk allergies, let 'em have at it. :thumbsup

I appreciate the info, but I'd appreciate it even more if you linked something that was more scientifically-based - say something even peer-reviewed, as opposed to a self-proclaimed "alternative health information" source that doesn't cite its sources properly and works from a P.O. Box.

I scanned a few peer-reviewed articles on the subject, and all I can find are items that are either neutral, or back up the assertion that, provided you're not allergic, bovine milk is generally healthy.

i am a duck

Nice, you know the internet is full of pus..err I mean "alternative health information"

NosMo

milk and cheese need that..good thing we did'nt stop there steak is great.:winkwink:

No, I'm not saying that at all. If you would study how meat is acually broken down and used for energy you would understand, a lot of things "we knew" have changed. I'm no expert but I have done my reading.

The fat/protein in the meat allows the energy to be stored in your body for longer periods of time. It takes a several types of enzymes to breakdown meat where it only takes a few to breakdown veggies. When your body releases so many extra enzymes the process of breaking down the food acually burns up more total energy that you will get from the meat.

The difference is, the energy from the meat is stored for use over a long period of time and the energy from most veggies is used in a very short period of time.

So no, eating more red meat would create a greater yield of stored up fat, and based on how a person uses that stored up fat they could get fat, buff, or be like me and just burn it off sitting behind a chair.

Our gov has already stated processed red meat is bad for you and that you should avoid it. You can find 10000's of case studies on removing red meat from the diet and people with extreme health issues just turning around. Not always of course but enough you should take notice.




To someone else, can't remember who it was.. The Inuit's (or Eskimos) eat a lot of raw fish and skins to get the vitos they need during the winter. If you study cultures that live in extreme conditions you will find that they acually have just enough of the right foods/water, ect to survive in that area, or that area would have no people.

There are many more links and studies out there. It all depends on what you want to believe.

http://www.pcrm.org/health/Info_on_Veg_Diets/dairy.html

http://www.pcrm.org/health/Info_on_Veg_Diets/milk.html

I have no problems about drinking milk and dairy except dairy industry's support of veal industry.

right. you're no expert. you are quoting goofy, hippy psuedo science constructed to defend vegetarianism.

ok... first of all, you started this by making the statement that red meat has negative calories. the conversation should have stopped right there and only started again with "well, yeah... ok, that was a silly thing to say"

i'm not going to do a 3 hr lecture on nutrition and anatomy and physiology. let me just say "uhm... .yeah... NO SHIT" of course carbs are more easily broken down and metabolized. their role in your body is to be converted to sugar as your bodys primary source of energy. your body runs on sugar. your body doesn't use sugar for growth, maintenence and repair.... hence the need for protein sources.

your body needs 3 macro nutrients to survive (in addition to all the other essential vitamins and minderals).. .proteins, fats and carbs. you can't easily get all your daily nutrients, vitamins and minerals from any one (or few)sources. ... hence, the need for diverse diets. you certainly can't easily get fat and protein from vegies. before you start making retarded arguments that you can... let me just say uhm... "no" - you can't. there are no vegetarian bodybuilders for a reason... because they can't easily eat the retarded amount of various vegetables, to get the correct balance of essential amino acids AT THE SAME TIME, to synthesize protein.

SAYING THAT YOU BURN MORE ENERGY DIGESTING RED MEAT THAN YOU GAIN IS SOOO RETARDED THAT ITS NOT WORTH EXPLAINING. you don't use more than 1500 calories digesting a 1500 calorie piece of meat which is high in fat as it is (something thats readily stored for energy).


you clearly have no idea how the body functions or how your body metabolizes food. nothing is automatically stored for energy for any reason unless you are eating more than you need at any given time and in the wrong proportions to other macronutrients. period. done.

you're remarks assume someone is eating very poorly and is not physically active.

huh? what is "processed red meat" and where is the government making such a statement?


oh..... nevermind. i get it now... this is the part where you make wild, unsubstantiated remarks and then tell me to "inform myself" by doing the "research" as you did... which of course implies that i am ignorant and you are informed while at the same time relieves you of the burden of making any sense at all.

as far as i recall, the government tells you specifically to eat a balanced diet and tells you specifically what that means.

ok... well, i'm from alaska. trust me.... eskimos in the far north are not eating fresh fruits and vegetables. historically, are eating 90% meat and fat all year long. delude yourself all you want by trying to say they don't eat red meat... but i can tell you for a fact and from personal experience that carribou, seal, walrus, whale and most other staples of their diets don't look or taste anything like chicken. in fact, its all red meat with the exception of salmon.

you can kid yourself all you want by telling yourself that these peoples are living all winter (all 8 months or so of it) on fresh oranges and home grown tomatoes if you want. i guess thats a choice you've made.









ANYWAY..... i'm done.

pointless conversation and totally silly and not grounded in the reality of how your body metabolizes foods.

if you don't want to eat red meat... dont. but do the world a favor and stop using retarded arguments to support your position. you can just as easily say "i made the choice to...." and people can respect you for that.

famous salad eaters of the paleolithic era. most of the great salads of today, date back to this era. you can see him here, sharpening his "salad stick"


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...derthal_2D.jpg

BEST

POST

EVER :D

Pleasurepay, you clearly know nothing about this subject and you didn't read a damn thing I wrote.

I mean come on, the last paragraph? I know they only eat red meat you ass hat, I was showing an example of how they get all the proper vitos and nutrient's from different "types" of meat (like skin) that provide vitamins C. Why don't you read/learn before you spout your mouth.

And the argument about protein, might want to checkup on what those body builders are eating. Red meat isn't on most menus.

http://health.usnews.com/usnews/heal...ancer-risk.htm

"A quarter-pound hamburger or a small pork chop eaten daily could put you at increased risk for a variety of cancers, U.S. government health researchers report."

"Red and processed meats have been associated with an elevated risk with colorectal cancer. We investigated whether this association was also evident for cancers at other anatomic sites," explained lead author Amanda Cross, an epidemiologist at the National Cancer Institute (NCI). "This is the largest study to look at the effect of red and processed meat on multiple cancer sites, including rarer cancers, such as laryngeal and liver cancer."


I'm only stating what the science community around the world has been telling us while you on the other hand are trying to pass off what you learned in high school as fact.

And I'm not a veterinarian, as stated 10 times in this post, but as I stated already, it isn't like you read anything.

"Our findings for colorectal cancer are consistent with the recommendations from the recently published World Cancer Research Fund and American Institute for Cancer Research to limit consumption of red meats, such as beef, pork and lamb," said Cross. "Our study also suggests that individuals consuming high quantities of red meat may be at an elevated risk for esophageal, liver and lung cancer."

And another study, released in the Aug. 17 Journal of the American Medical Association, showed that colon cancer patients who eat a diet rich in fruits, vegetables, poultry and fish can significantly lower the risk of their cancer returning. In contrast, those patients whose self-reported diet included high intakes of meat, fat, refined grains and dessert were more than three times more likely to see their colon cancer return.

Bam!
"If I were a cancer survivor," Doyle said, the new research "would make me stand up and take notice."

again...fat soluable vitamins are found in fat. not "skin". and you are really stretching things to make the argument that they would have shriveled up and died without eating salmon skin.

but i can guess that you have absolutely no idea what role vitamins and minerals play in the body as it is... so its a moot point.

i've spent more time in the gym in my 37 years than you could in the next 100. it was an analogy. i know what body builders eat. there are plenty of body builders who have historically relied primarily on red meat for protein as a primary source of protein. the point being... its done, its been done and according to your logic, its 100% impossible as red meat has no energy value at all and would cause a person to shrivel up and die


key word there as with 90% of ALL STUDIES "could" which is the immediate cousin of "could be", "might be", "might possibly" "possibly connected to.." and other vague and ambiguous terms that would make it clear to anyone who is not totally off their rocker that they are not stating anything as "fact".[/QUOTE]

this is not the same as saying "red meat causes cancer". peoples diets have changed dramatically over the last 100 years. a risk increased fat deposits inside your pooper which might cause a polyp, which can become cancerous doesn't equate to "eat meat and you will die"... it generally means "eat like an asshole and you will die from cancer"


you can't show me a study where normal healthy people, ate normal, healthy, well balanced meals and exercised who were at increased risk of cancer because they ate sane portions of red meat (unless you go down the carcinogen path.. .which has zero to do with "red meat")

'

oh... so now its you and "the science community around the world". i love those little additions and remarks for "credibility". i feel dumber now, having stated my case to millions of university educated people and the chosen messiah who speaks for them.

thank god you're here to deliver the message... apparently you're the only one getting the job done.

someone accused you of being a veterinarian 10 times?





Again... your argument was that red meat has negative calories. I.E. a negative energy value. That is quite possibly one of the dumbest statements ever made on this board. JaneB would be proud to read this thread and know she is now bumped from number 1 to number 2.

paleolithic people were well known for their ability to hunt lettuce and apples. many of early homosapiens simply lacked the stealth and tracking ability and perished.... Of course, many of the more sophisticated hunter/gatherers had massive pressure cookers and canning operations to can fruits and vegetables for winter... or they would just use their commercial freezers so they could enjoy a balanced diet, free from deadly red meat all winter long.

we have a 10-20 million year history on this planet which has clearly proven that red meat kills.