It's how I still feel about it. The way cows are treated (caged, fed unnatural food, preventive antibiotics, babies taken away right after birth, the misery of slaughter) shows me that the act of paying for the products derived from cows is, frankly, quite barbarian to me (as in: not very sophisticated).
Especially given that milk product are known for decades to be unhealthy for humans after the weaning stage.
> Especially given that milk product are known for decades to be unhealthy for humans after the weaning stage.
That's not true. Here:
>Background
> There is scepticism about health effects of dairy products in the public, which is reflected in an increasing intake of plant-based drinks, for example, from soy, rice, almond, or oat.
Objective
> This review aimed to assess the scientific evidence mainly from meta-analyses of observational studies and randomised controlled trials, on dairy intake and risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, cancer, and all-cause mortality.
Results
> The most recent evidence suggested that intake of milk and dairy products was associated with reduced risk of childhood obesity. In adults, intake of dairy products was shown to improve body composition and facilitate weight loss during energy restriction. In addition, intake of milk and dairy products was associated with a neutral or reduced risk of type 2 diabetes and a reduced risk of cardiovascular disease, particularly stroke. Furthermore, the evidence suggested a beneficial effect of milk and dairy intake on bone mineral density but no association with risk of bone fracture. Among cancers, milk and dairy intake was inversely associated with colorectal cancer, bladder cancer, gastric cancer, and breast cancer, and not associated with risk of pancreatic cancer, ovarian cancer, or lung cancer, while the evidence for prostate cancer risk was inconsistent. Finally, consumption of milk and dairy products was not associated with all-cause mortality. Calcium-fortified plant-based drinks have been included as an alternative to dairy products in the nutrition recommendations in several countries. However, nutritionally, cow's milk and plant-based drinks are completely different foods, and an evidence-based conclusion on the health value of the plant-based drinks requires more studies in humans.
> Conclusion
> The totality of available scientific evidence supports that intake of milk and dairy products contribute to meet nutrient recommendations, and may protect against the most prevalent chronic diseases, whereas very few adverse effects have been reported.
From:
Milk and dairy products: good or bad for human health? An assessment of the totality of scientific evidence
I agree with you that many modern commercial dairy and meat farming practices are barbaric, but milk is a nutrient dense superfood, whole cultures subsisted for centuries eating basically just dairy products. Milk products are not bad for you.
Oil is nutirent dense. Sugar is. It means nothing. Maybe you mean "micronutrient / calorie" dense. But even that, due to the high calorie content is not so true (lettuce is much more dense in this sense).
> cultures subsisted for centuries eating basically just dairy products
Subsisted in harsh climates on dairy (mainly in winter) as a supplement to their grain based food: yes, that happened in many areas. But that does not mean it's healthy.
> whole cultures subsisted for centuries eating basically just dairy product
The Mongol, Uyghur and other central Asian cultures subsisted almost entirely on horse and goat milk for centuries. Many northern European cultures subsisted almost entirely on dairy for periods in history. Nomadic pastoral cultures did not have land to grow grain, as they were nomadic, they lived basically off of foraged plants, dairy and meat of animals that they no longer could use for other purposes. Later, when these cultures moved away from a nomadic lifestyle and began growing grain yes, dairy was supplemental, but for many of them for centuries they subsisted largely on dairy products.
Milk is a nutrient dense superfood, whether grifters like to toss the terms around or not. That's the whole point of mammals creating the substance to begin with. It exists to provide complete nutrition all by itself.
Find me differences in nutrient requirements between babies and adults.
I'd say given that Genghis Khan was the most successful conqueror in human history that the Mongols thrived better than any other culture. The fact that dairy is a more widespread cultural artifact than vegetarianism is evidence that historically dairy consuming cultures thrived better than vegetarian ones.
Plants are good for you, the right ones anyway. So is milk.
> Find me differences in nutrient requirements between babies and adults.
Most of us humans tolerate lactose well when baby, and badly when grown up. Lactose intolerance is 85%. Whites and South-Asians are the only that same to fare well on it. Thus: found at least one difference.
> Genghis Khan
Srsly? I'm even going to unpack your war lord worship here. Have a great day!
> The fact that dairy is a more widespread cultural artifact than vegetarianism is evidence that historically dairy consuming cultures thrived better than vegetarian ones.
You have no clue what you talk about. Were a tropical animal, humans. We are made for tropical fruit like apes. We do bad on grain, we become nutirent dificient. In that state dairy may help sure. But that does not make it good.
> So is milk.
Saying so does not make it true. Are you glad you found a way to justify your behavior?
It's how I still feel about it. The way cows are treated (caged, fed unnatural food, preventive antibiotics, babies taken away right after birth, the misery of slaughter) shows me that the act of paying for the products derived from cows is, frankly, quite barbarian to me (as in: not very sophisticated).
Especially given that milk product are known for decades to be unhealthy for humans after the weaning stage.