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

Milk alternatives produce up to 4.5x less greenhouse gas emissions as milk

ourworldindata.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 192 posts

Re: Milk alternatives produce up to 4.5x less greenhouse gas emissions as milk

#101

Post by schroeding »

candiddevmike wrote: post #47
denimnerd42 wrote: post #32

Milk alternatives don't have any benefits in children. Milk drinking in children is thought to induce growth. You can't overdo it though as it interferes with iron absorption. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-63647-8 see the references height difference found: https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/106/2/597/4557638 may be related to IGF-1: https://www.nature.com/articles/1601948

Do we need big kids? Milk has a ton of calories and could be contributing to childhood obesity: https://nutritionfacts.org/2017/03/16/how-milk-may-contribut...

At least the oat milk brand I like to drink (Alpro) has exactly the same amount of calories as normal cow milk, which makes kinda sense, as they use additional oil to get to the identical fat content :D

So replacing it will not change anything in that regard, we just must be aware that (any) milk is (liquid) food and not a drink. Same problem as with softdrinks or fruit juices.

Anecdata: I regularly drank (cow) milk as a child and now I'm over 2 meters in height. But of course correlation with n=1 is not causation, and I'm sure many people here are equally large without a drop of milk. :D

Re: Milk alternatives produce up to 4.5x less greenhouse gas emissions as milk

#102

Post by throwaway2037 »

denimnerd42 wrote: post #32

Milk alternatives don't have any benefits in children. Milk drinking in children is thought to induce growth. You can't overdo it though as it interferes with iron absorption. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-63647-8 see the references height difference found: https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/106/2/597/4557638 may be related to IGF-1: https://www.nature.com/articles/1601948

As I understand, the reason why children are encouraged to drink milk is mostly about calcium. Many milk alternatives now have the same or more calcium per litre as cow's milk. When you say "growth" is this about bone (calcium) or muscle (protein) growth? In my experience, protein per litre is generally lower for milk alternatives.

Re: Milk alternatives produce up to 4.5x less greenhouse gas emissions as milk

#103

Post by chrisweekly »

xattt wrote: post #58
denimnerd42 wrote: post #32

Milk alternatives don't have any benefits in children. Milk drinking in children is thought to induce growth. You can't overdo it though as it interferes with iron absorption. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-63647-8 see the references height difference found: https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/106/2/597/4557638 may be related to IGF-1: https://www.nature.com/articles/1601948

Milk should be the beverage of choice for growing kids who do not have contraindications. 3.25% milk is recommended up until 2 years of age, and to continue into older age if there are no issues with obesity. (1) https://www.albertahealthservices.ca/assets/info/nutrition/i...

I have my doubts about such recommendations; aside from the influence of the dairy lobby, how many such nutrition guidelines account for high-quality non-dairy alternative sources of protein and calcium?

Re: Milk alternatives produce up to 4.5x less greenhouse gas emissions as milk

#104

Post by captainbland »

citilife wrote: post #55

I'm curious the long-term side effects on the body. I'm not sure it's better, we're something like 10,000 years into developing the ability to drink milk. I'm not sure we know what the effects of high soy intake is (only 10-15 years into mass consumer adoption -- we do see massive drops in sex hormones; possibly related, it is correlated). Also, I really dislike how these studies are conducted. They often don't accou…

Soy is not exactly a new thing in the history of humans. In fact some of the most populous regions on earth have been eating it widely for a very long time so it seems pretty low down on the list of fertility risk factors to be honest.

Re: Milk alternatives produce up to 4.5x less greenhouse gas emissions as milk

#105

Post by jyounker »

I think the focus on cows is kind of ridiculous. Our world's natural balance before humans included vast numbers of ruminants over vast expanses of the world. (e.g. huge populations of forest buffalo in Europe, vast Mammoth and Bison herds in North America).

This is an issue being pushed with the intention of distracting from the real issue: fossil fuel use.

Re: Milk alternatives produce up to 4.5x less greenhouse gas emissions as milk

#106

Post by googlryas »

unicornporn wrote: post #93
oh_sigh wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oatly original has 7g of sugar - 1 cup of whole cows milk has 12 g of sugar. So it is still significantly less sugar than cow's milk. I drink planet oat milk, and that only has 4g of sugar and tastes good to me.

Oatly's primary sugar, maltose, has 2.3 times the blood sugar impact as lactose, the primary sugar in cow's milk. Maltose has a glycemic index of 105, compared to 46 for lactose.[1] [1] https://www.jeffnobbs.com/posts/oatly-responds-in-defense-of...

Ok, but if Oatly is 100% maltose, it has only a slightly higher glycemic index than cow's milk. But the aforementioned planet oat is still lower(assuming it is 100% maltose)

Re: Milk alternatives produce up to 4.5x less greenhouse gas emissions as milk

#107

Post by unicornporn »

Reason077 wrote: post #98
unicornporn wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When it comes to Oatly... It tastes good, but that's because it contains plenty of sugars. You'll notice the difference when you make your own oat milk from oats. It's tastes quite terrible actually. Oatly adds enzymes to break down the starches to sugar. https://www.gq.com/story/oatly-nutrition-ipo

> "When it comes to Oatly... It tastes good, but that's because it contains plenty of sugars." Absolutely, but that's also true of cows milk. The sugars in oat milk are a bit simpler (primarily maltose rather than lactose), which gives a lower glycemic index, but the total sugar content isn't much different. Either way, if you compare them to something like fruit juice or full-sugar soft drinks, the sugar content is…

> The sugars in oat milk are a bit simpler (primarily maltose rather than lactose), which gives a lower glycemic index

That would lead to a higher glycemic index?

>> Either way, if you compare them to something like fruit juice or full-sugar soft drinks, the sugar content is still pretty low.

From https://www.jeffnobbs.com/posts/oatly-responds-in-defense-of...:

Even with the slightly lower glycemic index for maltose due to the soluble fiber content, I get more or less the same result for Oatly’s blood sugar impact: a glycemic index of 77 (previously 79) and a glycemic load of 18.4 (previously 19.0) for a 12 oz portion; still about the same blood sugar impact as a 12 oz cola, which has a glycemic index of 63 and glycemic load of 20.8.

Re: Milk alternatives produce up to 4.5x less greenhouse gas emissions as milk

#108

Post by lern_too_spel »

jyounker wrote: post #105

I think the focus on cows is kind of ridiculous. Our world's natural balance before humans included vast numbers of ruminants over vast expanses of the world. (e.g. huge populations of forest buffalo in Europe, vast Mammoth and Bison herds in North America). This is an issue being pushed with the intention of distracting from the real issue: fossil fuel use.

Here's the math: https://mrdrscienceteacher.wordpress.com/2019/09/21/bison-vs...

Re: Milk alternatives produce up to 4.5x less greenhouse gas emissions as milk

#109

Post by greenonions »

citilife wrote: post #55

I'm curious the long-term side effects on the body. I'm not sure it's better, we're something like 10,000 years into developing the ability to drink milk. I'm not sure we know what the effects of high soy intake is (only 10-15 years into mass consumer adoption -- we do see massive drops in sex hormones; possibly related, it is correlated). Also, I really dislike how these studies are conducted. They often don't accou…

Soy milk is hundreds of years old. I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that the hormone drop is caused by soy milk. American bison digest far better than cows and don't produce methane. What is natural about millions of cows in factories producing milk? Additionally these cows are being fed enormous amounts of gmo monocrops in order to produce. Almond milk is indeed a wasteful product, but the misallocation of scarce water due to regulation is not the same thing as greenhouse gases.

Re: Milk alternatives produce up to 4.5x less greenhouse gas emissions as milk

#110

Post by schroeding »

scythmic_waves wrote: post #78

I didn't see it discussed in the article, but I'm very excited about possibilities like Perfect Day [1]. They provide "animal-free" milk. Unlike other alternatives, this product contains actual milk proteins derived from microflora. So it has more of the texture, taste, and nutritional content you expect from milk, but animals are not involved in the manufacturing. I'd love to see how animal-free protein products sta…

Can't wait until such "real milk" replacements are broadly, cheapish-ly available, so we can get "real" vegan cheese, butter, cream and curd. IMO all current options there suck big time (but YMMV, of course) :D
Post reply on HN