Training & Nutrition - Anyone else using chocolate milk as a recovery drink?

It is absurd to me how much better is it than the Endurox R4 or whey protein right after a workout. I'll still have some whey about 2 hours later if I don't have a meal by then.
It just strikes me that chocolate milk is significantly cheaper, much much tastier, and not a lab-synthesized solution to our bodies needs.
There of course, like everything else is some science behind this. I had started drinking chocolate milk around october, but not regularly until I saw this.
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051206/LIVING/512060402/1007/LIVING

plus it tastes about a million times better.

I agree. Lots of articles in Runner's World and Prevention magazines to back you up.

Ditto. I saw a chocolate milk suggestion on another cycling website as well. I can't use it because of the sugar.

Webist, you can now get no sugar added chocolate milk, from Quik I believe. Tastes just about as good too.

Chocolate milk and pie, life don't get no better than that. :)

And in the winter you can have it hot!

And the Hershey squeeze bottle contains no grams of fat.

Serving Size 2 tbsp (39 g)
Amount Per Serving %DV *
Total Calories 100
Calories from Fat 0
Total Fat 0 g 0%
Saturated Fat 0 g 0%
Trans Fat 0 g
Cholesterol 0 mg 0%
Sodium 15 mg 1%
Total Carbohydrate 24 g 8%
Dietary Fiber less than 1 g 4%
Sugars 19 g
Protein less than 1 g

Vitamin A 0%
Vitamin C 0%
Calcium 0%
Iron 2%
*Percent Daily Values are based on a 2,000 calorie diet. Your daily values may be higher or lower depending on your calorie needs:
Calories: 2,000 2,500
Total Fat Less than 65g 80g
Sat Fat Less than 20g 25g
Cholesterol Less than 300mg 300mg
Sodium Less than 2,400mg 2,400mg
Total Carbohydrate 300g 375g
Dietary Fiber 25g 30g

I thought it was just me... milk works great for me as a recovery drink...

the chocolate doen't contain fat but the milk does 2% milk containing about 5g per 240ml/1 cup serving.. but as the daily values show you need some fat in your diet... the other thing is that you can easily go through 2000 Cal in one ride so depending on the kind of riding you are doing that 2000 Cal guide line may not really apply to you...

It is absurd to me how much better is it than the Endurox R4 or whey protein right after a workout. I'll still have some whey about 2 hours later if I don't have a meal by then.
It just strikes me that chocolate milk is significantly cheaper, much much tastier, and not a lab-synthesized solution to our bodies needs.
There of course, like everything else is some science behind this. I had started drinking chocolate milk around october, but not regularly until I saw this.
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051206/LIVING/512060402/1007/LIVING

Cow's milk is for baby cows. The "research" you cite isn't published in a peer-reviewed journal, now is it?

Cow's milk is for baby cows.

Folowing this train of thought... what is soy milk for? :D

That sounds good. I might do that after spin classes to curtail my appetite/chocolate craving. :)

Does it have to be chocolate? I drink both (choc & white), but I suppose the chocolate gives you a few more carbs (sugar), plus a little caffeine to keep you alert? Is it that much of a differance? I personally haven't really noticed it.

Cow's milk is for baby cows. The "research" you cite isn't published in a peer-reviewed journal, now is it?


Well, thank you for illustrating your basic knowledge of mammalian biology. Mammals produce milk for their young. What's your point?
As for the Indianapolis Star being a peer-reviewed journal, again thank you for pointing out the obvious. I don't believe they were the ones conducting the research, unless of course I am unable to read. There are plenty of peer-reviewed studies on this exact issue.

I believe part of the reason why chocolate milk is thought of as a good thing is because it does have some fat content. I am not sure of the exact reasoning behind this, but you do need some level of fat in your diet. This American fear of fat is a little silly.

Well, thank you for illustrating your basic knowledge of mammalian biology. Mammals produce milk for their young. What's your point?
As for the Indianapolis Star being a peer-reviewed journal, again thank you for pointing out the obvious. I don't believe they were the ones conducting the research, unless of course I am unable to read. There are plenty of peer-reviewed studies on this exact issue.

I believe part of the reason why chocolate milk is thought of as a good thing is because it does have some fat content. I am not sure of the exact reasoning behind this, but you do need some level of fat in your diet. This American fear of fat is a little silly.

America is a fat country! of course they need to be worried about consuming to much fat.

Well, thank you for illustrating your basic knowledge of mammalian biology. Mammals produce milk for their young. What's your point?
As for the Indianapolis Star being a peer-reviewed journal, again thank you for pointing out the obvious. I don't believe they were the ones conducting the research, unless of course I am unable to read. There are plenty of peer-reviewed studies on this exact issue.

Dude, I love people like you. Some people get a little bit of knowledge and take it way too far, then people like you smack them in the face.
I've used chocolate milk after rides and other workouts lots of times. If you hate the taste of most other sports drinks, as I do, it really makes a great alternative. I'm more inclined to drink it, so I'll get more nutrients out of it than the minimal amount I would from the few teaspoons of endurox I'd be willing to drink. However, they do have those chocolate whey protein things that taste pretty good. The main thing to do is to get something into your body within an hour of your workout.

Does it have to be chocolate? I drink both (choc & white), but I suppose the chocolate gives you a few more carbs (sugar), plus a little caffeine to keep you alert? Is it that much of a differance? I personally haven't really noticed it.

Milk.. more than just a souce of Calcium (see below).

Milk is 87% water for re-hydration... plus carbs (more carb in choc because of the sugar not because of the choc) and protein... there is lots of research that shows ingesting carbs with a bit of protein helps carbs absorption... and carb absorption within 30-min after a ride is absorbed many times faster than say an hour after... the thing for me is that sometimes it's hard to eat right after a ride but with choc milk... it has what the body need and it's really easy to scarf down your throat.

as for the anti milk coalition... you don't have to drink milk, but you know what... it works, can't argue with success... it's a super easy, fast way to get what the body needs right after a ride [The End] [Period] [Full Stop]... [Edit] and on top of all that it's cheap and it taste good!!! [Edit]


Nutrient Amount in one cup (250 mL) of 2% milk
Vitamin A 147 RE
Vitamin D 2.6 mcg
Thiamin 0.1 mg
Riboflavin 0.43 mg
Niacin 2.2 NE
Vitamin B6 0.1 mg
Folacin 13 mcg
Vitamin B12 0.94 mcg
Pantothenate 0.8 mg
Calcium 314 mg
Phosphorus 245 mg
Magnesium 35 mg
Zinc 1.0 mg
Potassium 398 mg
Sodium 129 mg
Protein 8.6 g
Fat 5 g
Carbohydrate 12.4 g

+1 on the chocolate milk bandwagon.

some links...

http://newsinfo.iu.edu/tips/page/normal/1674.html
http://walking.about.com/od/fluids/a/recoverydrink.htm
http://www.stackmag.com/TheIssue/ArticleDraw.aspx?NIL=False&CID=2041
http://www.whymilk.com/chocmilk_abstract_acsm.doc

Calcium probably helps as well. It's for more than just bones. Calcium helps regulate the electrical activity within the body -- especially heart rate and muscle contractions. With weight lifting, it is good to supplement 1 gm. of calcium per 1 hour of heavy olympic style lifting. If you do not supplement this calicum, it will be pulled from bone. This is not to say that you USE 1 gram of calcium per hour, it's just that calcium can be difficult to absorb, so you need to provide more.

I can see the same thing over time for cycling as well. Every muscle contraction and heart beat is relying on calcium in order to be regulated. That calcium has to come from somewhere.

Cycling and Osteoporosis has been getting a lot of attention lately, especially in older, life-long riders. It's better to supplement before than after, since taking calcium supplements will not REPLACE calcium that has been taken from bone mass. Supplementation is only a preventative measure to stop the calcium from being extracted from bones in the first place.

Sometimes I make a chocolate drink smoothie with Hershey's syrup, a banana, Torani's Hazelnut syrup, yogurt, and ice. Other times I substitute the Torani's Hazelnut syrup with Torani's Raspberry syrup. Both are delicious.

UMMMMMM milk and chocolate,, the 2 basic food groups

Well, thank you for illustrating your basic knowledge of mammalian biology. Mammals produce milk for their young. What's your point?
As for the Indianapolis Star being a peer-reviewed journal, again thank you for pointing out the obvious. I don't believe they were the ones conducting the research, unless of course I am unable to read. There are plenty of peer-reviewed studies on this exact issue.

I believe part of the reason why chocolate milk is thought of as a good thing is because it does have some fat content. I am not sure of the exact reasoning behind this, but you do need some level of fat in your diet. This American fear of fat is a little silly.

The study by Stager referenced in the Indiana newspaper reference you linked was funded by Dairy and Nutrition Council Inc., according to the Indiana University website. That makes any conclusions suspect. Further, one study does not a paradigm make. For example, a recent study showed no recovery benefit for massage after cycling (see http://bjsm.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/38/2/173). I suppose we should simply throw out all the soigneurs right away? Could it be that 100 years of cycling tradition has it wrong? I don't think so.

Listen, there are many very respected physicians who think that bovine milk is simply bad news. Human breast milk is the best choice for humans. Baby cows drink cow's milk. After they grow up, they cease to drink it. The only reason we drink it as adults is because we have been subjected to a massive media campaign by the producers of milk. Perhaps in the days of famine and agriculture as the only means to survival, milk was a good idea. Not so today. The only survival milk is responsible for today is the survival of cardiac surgeons. On a gut (common sense) level, if cows and humans don't produce milk for adults, does it make sense that adults should drink it, especially to excess?

I will remain cautiously optimistic about Stager's as yet unpublished study. John Ivy and Bob Portman looked at recovery and found that WHEN nutrients are consumed is actually more important than WHAT is consumed. We should not give Joel Stager credit for something he played no role in discovering (i.e., nutrient timing). The researchers behind Endurox (Ivy, Portman) discovered that concept. Chocolate milk might be a viable option for many people out there, but many people are lactose intolerant, and the word is out as to whether the fat content of chocolate milk is an aid or a detriment to recovery in the first 15 minutes after exercise. Further, milk and other dairy products can be detrimental for many persons with varying diseases. I am also one of those who believes there is a milk-mucous connection, although no one has yet been able to prove it. The studies may be looking at the wrong populations. Bovine growth hormone is another real concern. Perhaps the best thing for us to look at would be Ben Cohen's (the Ben of Ben & Jerry's ice cream) cardiac history. It's not so good.

You are recommneding saturated fat as a good fat when you recomend milk. While I agree that Americans are confused about fat, recommending saturated fat by using milk may not be such a good idea. How about starting with recommendations for small amounts of omega-3 or omega-6 fats?

Like I said, cow's milk is for baby cows. They stop drinking it when they grow up. Maybe it's time you did too.

The study by Stager referenced in the Indiana newspaper reference you linked was funded by Dairy and Nutrition Council Inc., according to the Indiana University website. That makes any conclusions suspect. Further, one study does not a paradigm make. For example, a recent study showed no recovery benefit for massage after cycling (see http://bjsm.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/38/2/173). I suppose we should simply throw out all the soigneurs right away? Could it be that 100 years of cycling tradition has it wrong? I don't think so.

Listen, there are many very respected physicians who think that bovine milk is simply bad news. Human breast milk is the best choice for humans. Baby cows drink cow's milk. After they grow up, they cease to drink it. The only reason we drink it as adults is because we have been subjected to a massive media campaign by the producers of milk. Perhaps in the days of famine and agriculture as the only means to survival, milk was a good idea. Not so today. The only survival milk is responsible for today is the survival of cardiac surgeons. On a gut (common sense) level, if cows and humans don't produce milk for adults, does it make sense that adults should drink it, especially to excess?

I will remain cautiously optimistic about Stager's as yet unpublished study. John Ivy and Bob Portman looked at recovery and found that WHEN nutrients are consumed is actually more important than WHAT is consumed. We should not give Joel Stager credit for something he played no role in discovering (i.e., nutrient timing). The researchers behind Endurox (Ivy, Portman) discovered that concept. Chocolate milk might be a viable option for many people out there, but many people are lactose intolerant, and the word is out as to whether the fat content of chocolate milk is an aid or a detriment to recovery in the first 15 minutes after exercise. Further, milk and other dairy products can be detrimental for many persons with varying diseases. I am also one of those who believes there is a milk-mucous connection, although no one has yet been able to prove it. The studies may be looking at the wrong populations. Bovine growth hormone is another real concern. Perhaps the best thing for us to look at would be Ben Cohen's (the Ben of Ben & Jerry's ice cream) cardiac history. It's not so good.

You are recommneding saturated fat as a good fat when you recomend milk. While I agree that Americans are confused about fat, recommending saturated fat by using milk may not be such a good idea. How about starting with recommendations for small amounts of omega-3 or omega-6 fats?

Like I said, cow's milk is for baby cows. They stop drinking it when they grow up. Maybe it's time you did too.


???

baby cow's (otherwise known as calves) HAVE to stop drinking milk like every other mammal when they become adults... other than humans adults (and only humans adults in area's where cow's milk is drunk) cease to produce the enzime necessary to digest milk... humans have actually addaped over 10's of thousands of years to be able to digest COW's milk as adults... you can talk 'til you are blue in the face about this and that about cow's milk but the bottom line is that choc milk works as a recovery drink... it just does. and of course people that are lactose intolerant shouldn't drink it, i don't see anyone saying that they should?? and people probably shouldn't go out and drink copious amounts of it as a meal replacement or anything, don't think anyone is saying that either, but as a quick way to get carbs and protein into your system with the right timing (as you aluded to) and in the right ratio of carbs to protien (4:1)... it just as a really easy way to do it... try it, it works... just does.

The Silk soy milk in chocolate is real good, especially if you are lactose intolerant.

http://www.silkissoy.com/index.php?sid=Products

Folowing this train of thought... what is soy milk for? :D
Human beans.

???

baby cow's (otherwise known as calves) HAVE to stop drinking milk like every other mammal when they become adults... other than humans adults (and only humans adults in area's where cow's milk is drunk) cease to produce the enzime necessary to digest milk... humans have actually addaped over 10's of thousands of years to be able to digest COW's milk as adults... you can talk 'til you are blue in the face about this and that about cow's milk but the bottom line is that choc milk works as a recovery drink... it just does. and of course people that are lactose intolerant shouldn't drink it, i don't see anyone saying that they should?? and people probably shouldn't go out and drink copious amounts of it as a meal replacement or anything, don't think anyone is saying that either, but as a quick way to get carbs and protein into your system with the right timing (as you aluded to) and in the right ratio of carbs to protien (4:1)... it just as a really easy way to do it... try it, it works... just does.

????

????
i'm guessing you didn't know that human adults are the ONLY adult mammals that have adapted to digest milk... and it has to be as a result of drinking cow's milk... don't know of any societies that drink human milk as adults... kinda puts a bit of damper on the argument that humans shouldn't be drinking cow's milk... maybe more that a damper... kinda blows a 50ft wide hole through it... our biology has actually addaped to it... do some research!

i'm guessing you didn't know that human adults are the ONLY adult mammals that have adapted to digest milk... and it has to be as a result of drinking cow's milk... don't know of any societies that drink human milk as adults... kinda puts a bit of damper on the argument that humans shouldn't be drinking cow's milk... maybe more that a damper... kinda blows a 50ft wide hole through it... our biology has actually addaped to it... do some research!

Do you always exaggerate to try to make a point? You're missing the point. Many humans are lactose intolerant, and still many more have sensitivity at varying levels. Many are allergic. We clearly have not "adapted". Many of us will never adapt. As many serious scientists and physicians will tell you, drinking milk, especially for some people, can have devastating consequences. For others, it's just a bad idea. I have done a little research on the topic, contrary to your pretentions.

For years and years now there has been scientific literature linking certain cancers and milk or dairy consumption. Research on the possible detrimental effects of drinking cow's milk is extensive. I also know that some newer studies show that many of our worries about drinking cow's milk may be unfounded. But questions still need to be asked. See:

Parodi PW. Dairy product consumption and the risk of breast cancer. J Am Coll Nutr. 2005 Dec;24(6 Suppl):556S-68S.

Yanagi S et al. Comparative effects of milk, yogurt, butter, and margarine on mammary tumorigenesis induced by 7,12-dimethylbenz(a)anthracene in rats. Cancer Detect Prev. 1994;18(6):415-20.

Hawkins RA, Thomson ML, Killen E. Oestrone sulphate, adipose tissue, and breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1985;6(1):75-87.

Wuthrich B, Schmid A, Walther B, Sieber R. Milk consumption does not lead to mucus production or occurrence of asthma. J Am Coll Nutr. 2005 Dec;24(6 Suppl):547S-55S.

Researchers have indeed found many bad effects from drinking cow's milk, and many effects that need to be further investigated:

Udall JN Jr, Suskind RM. Cow's milk versus formula in older infants: consequences for human nutrition. Acta Paediatr Suppl. 1999 Aug;88(430):61-7. Review.

For example, we know that there is an autoimmunity in people with Type 1 diabetes (beta-cell specific autoimmunity). But we do not know the cause of it. Finnish researchers have been looking at cow's milk. See:

Vaarala O, Paronen J, Otonkoski T, Akerblom HK. Cow milk feeding induces antibodies to insulin in children--a link between cow milk and insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus? Scand J Immunol. 1998 Feb;47(2):131-5.

Saarinen KM, Juntunen-Backman K, Jarvenpaa AL, Klemetti P, Kuitunen P, Lope L, Renlund M, Siivola M, Vaarala O, Savilahti E. Breast-feeding and the development of cows' milk protein allergy. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2000;478:121-30.

Vaarala O. Is type 1 diabetes a disease of the gut immune system triggered by cow's milk insulin? Adv Exp Med Biol. 2005;569:151-6. Review.

A possibly underdiagnosed and often misdiagnosed diesease is Heiner Syndrome (a food hypersensitivity pulmonary disease), another example. See:

Moissidis I, Chaidaroon D, Vichyanond P, Bahna SL.Milk-induced pulmonary disease in infants (Heiner syndrome). Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2005 Sep;16(6):545-52.

We also have possible increased cancer risk later in life from drinking cow's milk at an early age and early DNA damage:

Dundaroz R, Ulucan H, Aydin HI, Gungor T, Baltaci V, Denli M, Sanisoglu Y. Analysis of DNA damage using the comet assay in infants fed cow's milk. Biol Neonate. 2003;84(2):135-41.

My problem with milk, and let's be specific here, "doc", American cow's milk, is the injection of bovine growth hormone (rBGH) into it, a practice that is "not recommended" in the industry, yet is practiced routinely because it is so proftable for dairy producers. If you understood the built-in conflicts of interest at the FDA (read: Monsanto employees), then you might begin to see the light. It's a more serious issue than you think, and there are a lot of politics going on.

Now let me ask you a question, Spoc. Why is it that European nations and Canada have banned rBGH?

some links...

http://newsinfo.iu.edu/tips/page/normal/1674.html
http://walking.about.com/od/fluids/a/recoverydrink.htm
http://www.stackmag.com/TheIssue/ArticleDraw.aspx?NIL=False&CID=2041
http://www.whymilk.com/chocmilk_abstract_acsm.doc


The top and bottom of the 4 linked articles have this at the bottom... :eek:

"The research was funded by Dairy and Nutrition Council Inc." or

"Supported, in part, by a grant from the Dairy and Nutrition Council, Inc"

Hmmmmmmmm

i'm guessing you didn't know that human adults are the ONLY adult mammals that have adapted to digest milk... and it has to be as a result of drinking cow's milk... don't know of any societies that drink human milk as adults... kinda puts a bit of damper on the argument that humans shouldn't be drinking cow's milk... maybe more that a damper... kinda blows a 50ft wide hole through it... our biology has actually addaped to it... do some research!

I wonder how lactose intolerant people adapted to it...oh they did not. Maybe they are still cave men...
:p

I wonder how lactose intolerant people adapted to it...oh they did not. Maybe they are still cave men...
:p

so lets see what you are saying... since there are some people that don't possess the enzyme to digest milk or are allergic... I, who am NOT allergic nor lactose intolerant should not drink milk... that make a lot of sense... not!!

so let's expand and use your 'logic'... i know some people that can't eat wheat and others who can't eat peanuts, with my sister it's shell fish... she'll puff up like a balloon and the last time she almost died from just being exposed to a meal that had been cross contaminated with a spoon that had been used to mix a shell fish dish... so by your logic, just because, for whatever reason certain individuals don't have the capacity to take advantage of a certain food stuff that vast majority can eat without incident... the entire human race should stop using it??? are you about to stop eating anything with wheat in it?? or peanuts?? or shell fish??? sorry but that argument is just laughable!

and where did that cave man comment come from?? it turns out that individuals who come from areas of the world that didn't domesticate cows are in general lactose intolerant just like all other adult mammals including adult cows (coincidence i guess??)... and a certain small percent of people who live in areas where cows were domesticated are also lactose intolerant... just like a certain small percent who are wheat intolerant etc., etc. as i said above it doesn't then follow that all the rest of us must not eat those foodstuffs because a certain small percentage of us can't.

and there IS variability in the human race... some in tropical regions of the world produce more melanin and have dark skin, some less, some not at all (albino)... some in the arctic had adapted to surviving with the majority of their diet being fat and meat... and some have adapted to drink milk... in all cases just by increasing, reducing, turning on and off, or leaving on in the case of lactase production of a protein.. it doesn't mean that any of us is a cave man because we have toggle the settings of a few proteins in order to be better adaped to our environments.

The top and bottom of the 4 linked articles have this at the bottom... :eek:

"The research was funded by Dairy and Nutrition Council Inc." or

"Supported, in part, by a grant from the Dairy and Nutrition Council, Inc"

Hmmmmmmmm

OK... so now actually read the articles and dispute their findings... it's not enough to just say... oh the dairy council had something to do with it therefore it can't be true.. what in the findings do you find suspect? or did you just scroll to the bottom of the page to find out who sponsored it in order to make a pat but not in the least substantive response? you need to actually read the article to be able to make an argument against it.

Cows Milk (Ice Cold) and choc. fudge. Two most important food groups, Yum Yum..

Do you always exaggerate to try to make a point? You're missing the point. Many humans are lactose intolerant, and still many more have sensitivity at varying levels. Many are allergic. We clearly have not "adapted". Many of us will never adapt. As many serious scientists and physicians will tell you, drinking milk, especially for some people, can have devastating consequences. For others, it's just a bad idea. I have done a little research on the topic, contrary to your pretentions

as above... no, not the every member of the human race has adapted to drinking milk... as not every member of the human race has adapted to eating wheat (gluten intolerant... just came to me?) or fish or shell fish or peanuts or being in the sun for extended period of time etc, etc... but that is not a reason why the rest of us who possess these adaptations need to stop utilizing these adaptations...




My problem with milk, and let's be specific here, "doc", American cow's milk, is the injection of bovine growth hormone (rBGH) into it, a practice that is "not recommended" in the industry, yet is practiced routinely because it is so proftable for dairy producers. If you understood the built-in conflicts of interest at the FDA (read: Monsanto employees), then you might begin to see the light. It's a more serious issue than you think, and there are a lot of politics going on.

Now let me ask you a question, Spoc. Why is it that European nations and Canada have banned rBGH?


I too have a problem with the all these hormone pumped up farm animals and plants too... who knows what affects they can and are having on us... but that is not a milk specific issue! where is the anti chicken, beef, pork, fish and vegetable lobbies... or for that matter, where is the anti air coalition. Am i worried enough to be willing to spend twice as much for my food as i am now? No I'm not, so I'm willing to take my chances with the hormones. Plus with a 75-80 years life expectancy, it's never been higher.. in the past human being used to never lived long enough to get some of the disease we are getting these days... a couple thousand years ago, average life expectancy was in the area of 35 years or so.. so we must be doing something right... hormones and all...

Just because some people have adapted to drinking milk as adults does not mean it's good for your body. Over the past few hundred years, humans have dramatically increased their ability to process alcohol, too, but I don't see anyone saying that we should be drinking alcohol to be healthy. Cow's milk has a lot of healthy nutrients in it, but it also has a lot of things we don't need. It was designed/created/whatever to provide a 50-pound calf enough calories and nutrition to grow to over 1500 lbs! And now it has all these chemicals in order to profit the farmers, not the consumers. I'll say "no thanks" and take the Silk chocolate soy milk any day. But drink what you want, you're right that the harm being caused is hard to see due to 75+ year life expectancies.

There are good reasons why the organic milk/meat/whatever costs 2+ times as much as the chemically altered stuff. Why do you think 10k gold costs so much less than 18k gold? It's filled with a bunch of crap that is not gold!

There are many other sides of why adult milk drinking is not so good. We're simply looking at what is good for us nutritionally (Americans for the most part). The other factors deal with what is good for the environment, the animals, and people as a whole. Those are better left for a vegetarian or vegan thread.

Just because some people have adapted to drinking milk as adults does not mean it's good for your body. Over the past few hundred years, humans have dramatically increased their ability to process alcohol, too, but I don't see anyone saying that we should be drinking alcohol to be healthy. Cow's milk has a lot of healthy nutrients in it, but it also has a lot of things we don't need. It was designed/created/whatever to provide a 50-pound calf enough calories and nutrition to grow to over 1500 lbs! ...

i don't think anyone is saying drink milk 24hrs a day 365 days a year (at least i'm not), in fact the context of this thread is a very specific use... milk as a RECOVERY DRINK... where the goal is pretty much the same goal as those calves... get lots of carbs and a whole protein quickly and easily into the body... perfect ratio of carbs to proteins (4:1) and in liquid form... what else could better without using an IV?

no one would suggest Cytomax, Endurox or any of those other recovery drinks as meal replacement to be taken 24/7/365 either... we are talking about a very specific use here

Just because some people have adapted to drinking milk as adults does not mean it's good for your body. Over the past few hundred years, humans have dramatically increased their ability to process alcohol, too, but I don't see anyone saying that we should be drinking alcohol to be healthy. Cow's milk has a lot of healthy nutrients in it, but it also has a lot of things we don't need. It was designed/created/whatever to provide a 50-pound calf enough calories and nutrition to grow to over 1500 lbs! And now it has all these chemicals in order to profit the farmers, not the consumers. I'll say "no thanks" and take the Silk chocolate soy milk any day. But drink what you want, you're right that the harm being caused is hard to see due to 75+ year life expectancies.

There are good reasons why the organic milk/meat/whatever costs 2+ times as much as the chemically altered stuff. Why do you think 10k gold costs so much less than 18k gold? It's filled with a bunch of crap that is not gold!

There are many other sides of why adult milk drinking is not so good. We're simply looking at what is good for us nutritionally (Americans for the most part). The other factors deal with what is good for the environment, the animals, and people as a whole. Those are better left for a vegetarian or vegan thread.
I will drink Milk until someone pulls my cold dead hands off the milk carton. :) I like the Soy milk also but it is not a replacement for good old whole cows milk. Sorry.

What does the cow's milk have that soy milk does not have?

Seems soy has dark side (http://www.healingdaily.com/detoxification-diet/soy.htm) as well.. with 90% of it being produced from genetically modified soy beans from large multi-national companies like Monsanto with enormous economic incentives for pushing soy, it's estrogen mimicking effects and other hormone imbalance problems, potential increase in certain kinds of cancers and a slew of other potential problems... the more one digs the better and better cow's milk is looking when compared to soy... but that is probably the case for all foods... the more you look the more wrong you are going to find wrong with it

Silk soy products are 100% organic.

According to your article, Japanese consume 30 times the soy as Americans. According to the WHO, Japanese smoking rate is about 2 times that of Americans. Yet the overall cancer rate is much lower amongst the Japanese, and their life expectancy is about 10% longer than that of Americans.

Besides, someone who uses the sentence: "it is child abuse to feed a baby soy formula" as a stand-alone paragraph gets about as much credit from me as "Dr." Mercola.

Over the past few hundred years, humans have dramatically increased their ability to process alcohol, too, but I don't see anyone saying that we should be drinking alcohol to be healthy.

- actually, there are studies that show a daily glass of wine to be good for you! (perhaps not the alcohol, but other ingredients)...

- btw, to really throw some [giggle] fodder into this fray, here are the USDA acceptable insect and rodent contamination levels for pasta products:

MACARONI AND NOODLE PRODUCTS

Insect filth
(AOAC 969.41) Average of 225 insect fragments or more per 225 grams in 6 or more subsamples

Rodent filth
(AOAC 969.41) Average of 4.5 rodent hairs or more per 225 grams in 6 or more subsamples

DEFECT SOURCE: Insect fragments - preharvest and/or post harvest and/or processing infestation. Rodent hair - post harvest and/or processing contamination with animal hair or excreta

SIGNIFICANCE: Aesthetic

- bon apetit and enjoy your pasta!

SOURCE: USDA Food Defect Action Levels - 1995 Handbook (http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/dalbook.html)

What does the cow's milk have that soy milk does not have?
Taste.

Silk soy products are 100% organic.

According to your article, Japanese consume 30 times the soy as Americans. According to the WHO, Japanese smoking rate is about 2 times that of Americans. Yet the overall cancer rate is much lower amongst the Japanese, and their life expectancy is about 10% longer than that of Americans.

Besides, someone who uses the sentence: "it is child abuse to feed a baby soy formula" as a stand-alone paragraph gets about as much credit from me as "Dr." Mercola.


organic? what does that mean? is that before or after long industrial grade process that allows soy to be consumed... subjected to acid and alkaline baths, high temperature and pressures to reduce the undesirables that result from the process.. bet lots of people who eat and drink soy product would not dream of using white processed sugar which probably goes though less processing than this stuff..

so guess you are just going to skip conveniently skip over this section "...Japanese, and Asians in general, have much higher rates of other types of cancer, particularly cancer of the esophagus, stomach, liver and pancreas.(8) Asians throughout the world also have high rates of thyroid cancer..."

i guess the cancers that are lower for the Japanese are directly attributable to soy intake because that is the only difference between Asian and Western or N. American diets? so are the rates of lower of esophagus, stomach, liver and pancreas cancers in the west directly related to our milk intake? OR is it that it is the soy causes the higher rates of esophagus, stomach, liver and pancreas cancers in Asia? Diets in Asia and Europe and N. America differ in more than just intake of soy... pretty simplistic and self severing to the soy industry to say, well these lower rates in a few forms of cancer is as a direct result of soy intake isn't it?

and the child abuse paragraph... lots of sites I'm looking at, even the pro soy ones are not recommending soy for infants (strictly 1 year +)

Hey, DocSpoc, what a can of worms opened up here, eh? For me, as an athlete, chocolate milkfat is bad fat. Fat isn't a good thing to consume in the first hour after a workout, no matter what Nancy Clark, MS, RD (not PhD) says (she's on record for saying white bread is good for you). The biological value of milk protein (caseins) isn't as high as pure whey (what's left after you centrifuge the caseins out of milk). Pretty simple stuff, really.

I drink skim milk with either the sugar-free Quik powder mix, or the Hersey's squeeze bottle after my rides. Mmmm mmm good!

Hey, DocSpoc, what a can of worms opened up here, eh? For me, as an athlete, chocolate milkfat is bad fat. Fat isn't a good thing to consume in the first hour after a workout, no matter what Nancy Clark, MS, RD (not PhD) says (she's on record for saying white bread is good for you). The biological value of milk protein (caseins) isn't as high as pure whey (what's left after you centrifuge the caseins out of milk). Pretty simple stuff, really.

i had no idea chocolate milk was so controversial... :)

fat content is a legit issue, but 2% chocolate milk only has 5g of fat of which only 3g are saturated fats, but if you don't want the fat you can just drink skim chocolate milk like AndyGrow... it actually has less fat and less staturated fat than soy milk

per 1 Cup / 250 ml

Soy Choc:
Fat = 5g (7% DV), sat fat = 1g (3% DV)

Skim Milk Choc: (Starbucks actually 12 instead of 8 fl oz above and below):
Fat = 2g (2% DV), sat fat = 0g (0% DV)

2% Choc Milk:
Fat = 5g (7% DV), sat fat = 3g (15% DV) * not sure about the %DV... if 1g is 3% then how come 3g is 15%DV? shouldn't it be 9% DV?

cool site... Nutritional Data (http://www.nutritiondata.com/foods-chocolate%20milk000000000000000000000.html) you can enter any food into the search at the top of the page and it spits out the nutritional data label for it, plus ultra detailed nutrient data

but i think i can deal with the 5g of fat/3g saturated fat in the 2% choc milk.. only 9% DV but tastes 1000 times better... skim choc milk and soy choc milk taste like crap compared to 2% (reduced fat) choc milk...

have to watch the DV values too... they are not really applicable to endurance athletes that require more calories than the average person... and you shouldn't be eliminating fat completely from your diet. Edmond R. Burk PhD in his book "Serious Cycling" states that the average break down for Tour de France cyclist is 23% - 62% - 15% (Fat - Carbs - Protein)... the 23% is much higher (> 2x) than is usually recommended. since fats have highly concentrated calories and it's about the only way they can get enough calories down their throat to deal with the huge amount of calories they are expending. just couldn't eat enough carbs to do it... but you are right it should be non-saturated fats.

so guess you are just going to skip conveniently skip over this section "...Japanese, and Asians in general, have much higher rates of other types of cancer, particularly cancer of the esophagus, stomach, liver and pancreas.(8) Asians throughout the world also have high rates of thyroid cancer..."
No, I didn't skip over that part. I wrongly assumed that you would realize that it's an irrevelant statement. In my reply, I specifically stated in italics that the overall cancer rate in Japan is lower. I don't care if Japan has a thousand times the rate of fingernail cancer or nose-hair cancer, the simple fact is that a lower rate of people in Japan die from cancer than in America. Your article did not link soy intake to those types of cancer. It linked asians to those types of cancer. Writers prey on the reader's gullibility to make it seem like statistics support something that is completely irrevelant.



i guess the cancers that are lower for the Japanese are directly attributable to soy intake because that is the only difference between Asian and Western or N. American diets?

I never stated that the "cancers that are lower for the Japanese" were prevented by soy. But your article did state (or strongly suggest) that the "cancers that are higher for the Japanese" were because of soy intake, without any proof of that. I simply suggested that those cancers could have been caused by something else like smoking, but they could have been caused by soy, polluted air, or the inability to pronounce the letter "L".



so are the rates of lower of esophagus, stomach, liver and pancreas cancers in the west directly related to our milk intake? OR is it that it is the soy causes the higher rates of esophagus, stomach, liver and pancreas cancers in Asia?
OR is it that the smoking rate in Japan causes those cancers? I don't know, it could be anything. Your article fails to show what is causing those types of cancer.



Diets in Asia and Europe and N. America differ in more than just intake of soy... pretty simplistic and self severing to the soy industry to say, well these lower rates in a few forms of cancer is as a direct result of soy intake isn't it?
Yes, it would be. Which, again, is exactly what your article did with the inverse statement.



and the child abuse paragraph... lots of sites I'm looking at, even the pro soy ones are not recommending soy for infants (strictly 1 year +)
Okay, but I wouldn't call it child abuse and expect to be respected professionally.



- actually, there are studies that show a daily glass of wine to be good for you! (perhaps not the alcohol, but other ingredients)...
The ingredient is red grapes. The industry can get away with saying this because: 1. there are more people who drink a glass of red wine per night than people who eat the amount of red grapes necessary to make a glass of red wine 2. it's what society wants to hear.
Again, writers preying on gullibility.



Taste.
In the case of chocolate soy milk, I really doubt that many people would dislike it even on the first try. In the case of normal soy milk, I think that it's something you can get used to (like beer?). The problem is a society that is unwilling to even try it for whatever reason.



Look, I don't have a huge problem with cow milk and I don't think I bashed it in any way. I still eat cheese because there is no suitable vegan replacement for it. It's just frustrating to see so many people bash anything soy without any real knowledge of it. Because it's against what most Americans think they stand for. Because they're unwilling to try something different. Etc.

In the case of chocolate soy milk, I really doubt that many people would dislike it even on the first try. In the case of normal soy milk, I think that it's something you can get used to (like beer?). The problem is a society that is unwilling to even try it for whatever reason.

.

Hey Steve, I have been drinking Silk Chocolate soy milk for a few years now. You are absolutly correct. The taste is great and overall I feel a healthier choice than cows milk, however I buy and drink both. In my protien shakes I use plain soy. In oatmeal I use plain soy (sweetens it up a bit so you don't have to use sugar). I think it is about making good choices and having a good balance. Not too far right nor too far left. Same with exercise, family and friends.

Take care and ride hard,

I don't know how I stayed out of this debate for so long. Anyhow traditional human societies have a LONG history of consuming milk from cows, sheep, goats, yak's, lama's, buffalo etc., etc. Its the most nutritious food and human kind would have starved without it or been seriously protein deficient at the least.

I'll go off on a short tangent here and say there was an interesting program on TV last night where a researcher was trying to understand why there are have's and have nots in this world and he was trying to see if it was linked with the development of farming. The idea sort of works EXCEPT when you take Papua New Gineans into the picture and then it falls apart. The Papuans have been farming just as long as anyone else on this planet yet didn't develop advanced societies. To cut this short what they didn't have was a good source of protein. Either plant or importantly animal. Dairy has been such a CRITICAL source of protein for our ancestors.

Anyway the milk that's foisted upon us these day's is a very sad imitation of what it used to be. Now I'm one of those poor souls who's intolerant to modern dairy produce but if I get the GOOD stuff I'm OK. Now guess what?

The GOOD stuff is considered to be illegal and by that I mean RAW, UNPASTURISED milk just as mother nature or GOD if you like intended it too be.

Have I started to rant?

I buy raw (unpasturised), unhomoginised jersey milk, pour it into a glass jar that's been sterilised with boiling water and let it sit for 24 hours to naturally sour before putting it in a fridge. BEAUTIFUL stuff although I will admit its a little lumpy so most of you would turn your noses up at it but the point of my self indulgent story is that this is how our ancestors drank milk. EDIT 2: OK I dont think any of you are going to try my recipie but I thought that I should add that its for RAW milk ONLY. Don't try to sour pasturised milk because it doesn't work. It just putrifies instead because the pasturisation proccess has killed the native benificial bacteria that are needed for the proccess to work. Not this homogenised, pasteurised, reconstituted junk that gets passed onto an unsuspecting public so no wonder people are intolerant to it.

A key issue is that pasteurisation kills an enzyme thats needed for the proper digestion of milk and by naturally souring the milk I have allowed the beneficial bacteria to grow making it easier to digest and even more nutritious.

See, http://www.realmilk.com/

Regards, Anthony

EDIT: Oh, and by the way I do like my naturaly soured milk as a recovery food. Its great stuff.