Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The rise of alternative milks

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 214 posts

Re: The rise of alternative milks

#111

Post by YokoZar »

lprubin wrote: post #99
scoot wrote: post #88

My kids are variously vegan / flex, and since I only put milk in coffee, it wasn't worth keeping milk in the fridge for, so switched to one of their alternatives. Soy curdles, so almond it was, until I learned that it takes ~5 litres (1.1 US gallons) of water to produce a single almond! The Oatly post here a few days ago may have been a shill, but it was enough for me to try it. Far closer to the taste of cows milk t…

I’ve seen it estimated that it takes 2,000 gallons of water to produce a gallon of cow milk which would be twice what it takes to produce almond milk.

Some quick googling suggests there are 4 cups of almonds in a gallon of almond milk, and ~25 almonds per cup, so about 100 gallons of water per gallon of almond milk from just growing the almonds. That's a factor of 20x, if we believe it takes 2000 gallons of water to make a gallon of milk.

But another source on the top links of Google says it takes about 4 gallons of water to make a gallon of milk. This is a difference of 250x. That would imply almond milk takes 25 times as much.

It shocks me how such a seemingly basic consumer question could have such wild orders of magnitude variance in the apparent answers.

Re: The rise of alternative milks

#112

Post by jelliclesfarm »

pofilat wrote: post #104
code_duck wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I’m not mistaken, the composition and origin are fairly similar. Milk is something that is excreted from a reproductive gland on a stock animal.

which is not where nails come from. Calling breast a reproductive gland is weird. It's a secondary sexual feature, sure, but it's a feeding gland, whose specific purpose is to provide edible nourishment.

Actually this might an interesting read..I have been obsessed with this for a bit now..re why mammals nourish their young with their bodily secretions..: The Evolution of Milk Casein Genes from Tooth Genes before the Origin of Mammals : https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/28/7/2053/1047188

And this:

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150725-breastfeeding-has-an... : why did some animals evolve milk and breastfeeding

Re: The rise of alternative milks

#113

Post by jelliclesfarm »

If someone is looking to switch for sustainablity reasons, they shouldn’t be buying liquid non dairy almond either. You must need a handful of almonds to make your own almond milk. It’s wasteful in so many ways..from processing to transporting to the water content and all the middle men charges in the supply chain.

Soak almonds. Peel. Purée with water..strain. Or don’t. Fresh almond milk.

I realize many people won’t have the time to do it. And that’s ok. But I just want to put this out there because it’s so easy and there is no special process or ingredient. And it’s cheaper and more sustainable. And lesser carbon and fossil fuel foot print.

Plus pistachios make a great nut milk too.

Re: The rise of alternative milks

#114

Post by megablast »

greglindahl wrote: post #65
Pharmakon wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s pure marketing, where the reality would be “juice” if we’re being charitable. In a lot of cases it’s water with a hint of X, and a lot of added sugar. All told drinking a lot of anything other than water is probably a bad move, but evidence suggests that if you’re not lactose intolerant, milk is a healthier choice for what you put on cereal. All things being equal, my major issue with alternative “milk” isn’t th…

Cow's milk is mostly water. As for alternative milks being a fad, it's a fad that's more than a thousand years old -- for example, almond milk was important in Europe for meatless Fridays and during Lent. I'm not sure who "should know better" when it comes to religious doctrine affecting food choices.

Isn’t every liquid mostly water? Even coke is 99% water?

Re: The rise of alternative milks

#115

Post by PerfectElement »

Pharmakon wrote: post #56
dabbledash wrote: post #52

Using “milk” in the name of something doesn’t make an “alternative milk” in any way that doesn’t apply to any other drinkable liquid.

It’s pure marketing, where the reality would be “juice” if we’re being charitable. In a lot of cases it’s water with a hint of X, and a lot of added sugar. All told drinking a lot of anything other than water is probably a bad move, but evidence suggests that if you’re not lactose intolerant, milk is a healthier choice for what you put on cereal. All things being equal, my major issue with alternative “milk” isn’t th…

> low in protein and fat is a bad sign.

By that standard, human breast milk should be considered unhealthy (0.8%-0.9% protein, 3%-5% fat).

Re: The rise of alternative milks

#116

Post by justin66 »

mnm1 wrote: post #80

Milk may not be the healthy food it was touted to be, but neither are most if not all of these "milks" that are basically mostly water and sugar. I'd take lactose over fructose or glucose any day. That's the main selling point: a slightly sweet, natural drink sweetened by lactose rather than fructose and glucose directly. Otherwise, I might as well drink soda--from looking at the sugar content of most of these "milks…

> Milk may not be the healthy food it was touted to be, but neither are most if not all of these "milks" that are basically mostly water and sugar.

I don't know why you'd write that. The almond milk I buy is unsweetened, and I'm pretty sure it's a popular one since they sell it by the pallet at Costco. All the common soy milks offer an unsweetened option AFAIK.

Re: The rise of alternative milks

#117

Post by nearbuy »

azinman2 wrote: post #15
Havoc wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Soylent isn't really aimed at health, more convenience & novelty. Its not unhealthy either, but you get my point

I’d suggest it is unhealthy. We don’t even know what all is in the food we eat, so to pretend we can combine a bunch of synthetic stuff into some well rounded meal for daily consumption I believe is dangerous.

1. That's not an argument that it's unhealthy. That's an argument that it's risky. "We haven't proved it's healthy" isn't the same as "it's unhealthy".

2. Some people have been on 100% Soylent diets for years now. I don't believe there's been any indication of nutrient deficiencies yet.

3. This argument seems weak because you don't know how unhealthy the diet you're replacing is. If I grab a Soylent for lunch instead of getting a burger or pad thai at the food court, which is healthier? Are the high levels of cadmium in spinach unhealthy? How many naturally occurring carcinogens in natural foods are still undiscovered? Any diet has risk. You need to show why Soylent is worse than what it's replacing.

Re: The rise of alternative milks

#118

Post by mnm1 »

dashundchen wrote: post #92
mnm1 wrote: post #80

Milk may not be the healthy food it was touted to be, but neither are most if not all of these "milks" that are basically mostly water and sugar. I'd take lactose over fructose or glucose any day. That's the main selling point: a slightly sweet, natural drink sweetened by lactose rather than fructose and glucose directly. Otherwise, I might as well drink soda--from looking at the sugar content of most of these "milks…

I don't know what region you are in, but in the US almost any store that stocks non-dairy milks will sell sweetened and unsweetened. Though I agree with disliking the sweetened stuff. I'm not sure who the market for the sweetened stuff is for - coffee creamer maybe, or trying to simulate milk lactose? but the unsweetened works just as well in any scenario. Additionally, nut and oat milks are very easy and cheap to ma…

Yeah but the problem with unsweetened soy and almond milk (and even slightly sweetened) is that it's fucking disgusting so it has no use for me and for anyone that feels that way. I highly doubt any of the other veggie milks here are less disgusting. I would guess that lactose free milk is also disgusting before they add sugar back in but can't prove it.

Re: The rise of alternative milks

#119

Post by dabbledash »

Pharmakon wrote: post #56
dabbledash wrote: post #52

Using “milk” in the name of something doesn’t make an “alternative milk” in any way that doesn’t apply to any other drinkable liquid.

It’s pure marketing, where the reality would be “juice” if we’re being charitable. In a lot of cases it’s water with a hint of X, and a lot of added sugar. All told drinking a lot of anything other than water is probably a bad move, but evidence suggests that if you’re not lactose intolerant, milk is a healthier choice for what you put on cereal. All things being equal, my major issue with alternative “milk” isn’t th…

I don’t have any issue with these things as beverages, but cringe when I read mothers of babies old enough to switch off of human milk (or formula) ask “what kind of milk” they should be giving their child. As if almond milk is a “kind of milk” in any meaningful sense.

Re: The rise of alternative milks

#120

Post by andy_ppp »

jelliclesfarm wrote: post #113

If someone is looking to switch for sustainablity reasons, they shouldn’t be buying liquid non dairy almond either. You must need a handful of almonds to make your own almond milk. It’s wasteful in so many ways..from processing to transporting to the water content and all the middle men charges in the supply chain. Soak almonds. Peel. Purée with water..strain. Or don’t. Fresh almond milk. I realize many people won’t…

Yes, I did a cooking course in Thailand and they showed us how to make coconut milk by hand - it really was amazing how quickly the water went unctuous, creamy and thick as you massaged grated Coconut into water. Best coconut milk I've ever had without a doubt.
Post reply on HN