In this context groundnuts, sunflower, mustard are all "vegetables". See definition 3 of vegetable at https://www.dictionary.com/browse/vegetable
In the case of soy, oil is taken out of its seed only, soy oil is also seed oil.
A2 Ghee a scam?
- Thread starter Arjun
- Start date
In the case of soy, oil is taken out of its seed only, soy oil is also seed oil.
When vegetable oil is mentioned on the ingredients list of a product, it almost always refers to palm / soy oil or hydrogenated fat.
Regarding Soy - https://www.universityofcalifornia....umed-cooking-oil-causes-genetic-changes-brain
No https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetable_oil . Soy oil is also seed oil. And soy oil is also vegetable oil.
Quite surprised to see that nothing has changed in 2015.
Around ~70s a lot of studies were conducted on large number of population for years to study effects on diet. This was done by various western countries. At that point it was theoretically known that animal fat is bad for health compared to vegetable oil (sat vs unsat to be more precise).
Conmen among academics rigged the test to match with common knowledge. Same thing what students do in lab. They got fame and citations across global news.
The guys who tried to do a fair job was surprised by their results. One of them (Harvard prof) did a near perfect test. He used people stuck in various mental hospitals as test subjects (to avoid people lying about their diet). He designed both sat and unsat meals which looked identical (blind test). The people who took veg based fats died faster. He couldn’t explain his results to himself as he too believed on the sat vs unsat theory.
What had happened was that science didn’t have the theory to explain what happened. In recent decades it was discovered that heat made vegetable oils far more toxic (not just unhealthy).
So there is no conspiracy theory behind what happened in 60s. Sponsorship did it believing that the results were in favour.
blr_p
Skilled
Ah yes what my grandparents used for cooking. But then they lived very physically active lives and used squat style toilets.
Technically they are seed oils
That's been the norm in my house as well.
Milk used to curdle sometimes during this process and we'd fight with the milk booth that he was giving us old stock.
It's only when i got a fridge thermometer and read the label saying the milk needs to be stored at temperatures no higher than 4 degrees C that the problem stopped.
The old fridge averaged around 8 degrees but the new one keeps it below 4 and as a result i've never had milk curdle since.
Above disclaimer should be read, re-read and again read before watching the below video because otherwise you will forget it.
In other words corruption. I'm just shocked this could happen with the American heart association
It does matter. because there is misinformation being peddled. You don't need to pay more for A2 milk when the regular milk we get already has it and more importantly there is nothing wrong with A1 milk. People confuse 'causal' causing with 'risk' meaning contributing but not enough to be the only reason.
A1-A2 beta casein milk: Is the controversy relevant to India? | Vethelplineindia.co.in
www.vethelplineindia.co.in
Pretty much confirms what rdst_1 said
And it is dated 2015...old news debunked years ago
Kiwi controversy explained
The hype over branded A2 milk
Given its predominance in Indian cattle there is no need for consumers to switch to the branded version of A2 milk
Last edited:
blr_p
Skilled
It Takes 1000 Litres Of Water To Produce Only 1 Litre Of Milk
It Takes 4750 Litres Of Water To Produce 1 Kg Of Milk Powder
It Takes 5060 Litres Of Water To Produce 1Kg Of Cheese
Dairy Is Not Beneficial To Human Health And Is Associated With Many Of Our Most Common Diseases
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine: Health Concerns About Dairy
Nutrition Facts.Org: Wary of Dairy
Nutrition Facts.Org: Topic: Dairy
Continued Consumption Of Any Kind Of Milk “May Have Long-Term Adverse Effects On Human Health.”
Diet in acne: further evidence for the role of nutrient signalling in acne pathogenesis
Dairy Products Has Been Linked To Higher Risk For Various Cancers, Especially To Hormone Sensitive Cancers Of The Reproductive System
Hormones in Dairy Foods and Their Impact on Public Health
Multiple Studies Have Shown That The Consumption Of Milk And Dairy Products Increases The Risk Of Prostate Cancer
Dairy Products, Calcium, and Prostate Cancer Risk: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Of Cohort Studies
A Milk Protein, Casein, as a Proliferation Promoting Factor in Prostate Cancer Cells
Milk Consumption Is a Risk Factor for Prostate Cancer: Meta-Analysis of Case-Control Studies
Milk Consumption is a Risk Factor for Prostate Cancer in Western Countries: Evidence from Cohort Studies
PCRM: New Review Finds Dairy Products Linked to Prostate Cancer
PCRM: More Evidence That Milk Consumption Increases Risk for Prostate Cancer
Countries Which Consume The Highest Amounts Of Calcium From Dairy Actually Have The Highest Rates Of Hip Fractures And Osteoporosis
Milk Intake and Risk of Mortality and Fractures in Women and Men: Cohort Studies
Correlation Between Hip Fracture Rates per 100 000 and Dairy Consumption
Calcium intake and Risk of Fracture: Systematic Review
Milk Consumption During Teenage Years and Risk of Hip Fractures in Older Adults
Feeding Half The World’S Grain Crop To Animals Raised For Meat, Eggs, And Milk Instead Of Directly To Humans Is A Significant Waste Of Natural Resources, Including Fossil Fuels, Water, And Land
Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) of the United Nations
How Planting Crops Used to Feed Livestock is Contributing to Habitat Destruction
1 Acre Of Land Can Produce 15X More Protein From Plants, Than The Same Area Of Land Used For Farming Animals
2018 Report by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Land, Irrigation Water, Greenhouse Gas, And Reactive Nitrogen Burdens of Meat, Eggs, And Dairy Production
Oat Milk Uses 13 X Less Water, 11 X Less Land, And Creates 3.5 X Less Carbon Emissions Than Cow’s Milk
Climate Change: Which Vegan Milk is Best?
Livestock Takes Up Most Of The World’S Agricultural Land But Only Produces 18% Of The World’S Calories And 37% Of Total Protein
Our World in Data: Global Land for Agriculture
If it applies to NZ it also applies here. So how many want to switch to plant based milks ?
Nobody ? ok
Maori Were Some Of The Tallest, Strongest, Fittest People On The Planet (Without Dairy)
Story: Te hauora Maori i mua – history of Maori health
Today, Maori Suffer From Disproportionately Higher Rates Of Diabetes, Heart Disease And Cancers
NZ Herald: Number of Kiwis with diabetes doubled in past 10 years
reminds me of something I came across this week
butter production in Bangladesh, U.S. cheese production, and sheep population in Bangladesh and the U.S. together “explained” (in a statistical sense) 99% of the annual movements of the S&P 500 between 1983 and 1993. (The paper in which he demonstrates this can be downloaded here.)
fastapifastdisks
Adept
if you can afford ghee why not use pure cold pressed sunflower or olive oil or even peanut. By cold press i mean those done in a wooden vat or a wooden crushing pin in a steel vat. In india its called ghani ka tel. These are expensive but exteremly pure plus olive oil and sunflower oil is great for your health and skin.Ghee on the other hand is A fatty,B will definately cause a increase in acne and bad skin.
Not disputing with other points, but this one is far fetched.
There are SO many other factors (including so many changes in diet) also that have changed which can possibly lead to obesity and multiple disorders.
We cannot single it down to milk.
IF your/artcile's point was: can we do without milk and be strong & healthy - the answer is resounding YES. Milk is not necessary.
But then sugar is not necessary. In fact it is harmful in the long run and no one really cares about it. In fact what was a rare luxury in yesteryears has, in today's social lifestyle, become a basic requirement.
Tell me how many beverages you can locate at a local store which don't have sugar in it.
I can tell you cooking wise.
Cow ghee is yellowish and buffalo is whitish. When you heat - both turn into kind of transparent color.
Cow ghee has a more aromatic flavor which I prefer, someone else may prefer mild smell of buffalo ghee.
Nutrition wise the differences will make jack-shit to you.
Ghee is mostly saturated fat. Any vitamins and minerals are traces, you would be better served worrying about eating veggies and fruits that are vitamin & mineral rich. Perhaps take pills having bioactive ingredients
Last edited:
rdst_1
Skilled
Not much difference nutrition wise. I mean all cooking oils including Ghee are 99% fat. So I don't understand what people mean when they ask for nutritional value. For sources of vitamins, minerals, etc, you should look someplace else than the oil/ghee medium you are cooking with.
Ssreek
Adept
The amount of propoganda and so many mediums dictating and trying to make people believe everything they say by using these words like, nutrition, medicinal values, vedic medicine blah blah...Some of us have time and interest to research these things, but the majority believe these things happily without question.
rdst_1
Skilled
All these movie people go and quote carbon footprints for agriculture. Agriculture, whether it is animal agriculture or plant agriculture is most important because we won't be alive without it. If these guys are really so concerned about our planet, then they should first stop with the wasteful movie making.
Also, it's our huge human population and the way we consume food, especially the west, that's more responsible for the claims that they make. Even a non-vegetarian in India will consume less meat in a week that they do in a day. Another aspect that people forget, why animal agriculture is important, because many parts of the world can't grow crops many months of the year. And who do we fall back upon when crops fail. My mother's family has been farming since before independence and she recalls many years of her life, when they would survive seasons just on milk and milk products, because the crops would fail. And this was when her family owned 75 acres of land. Can you think what happens to a marginal farmer when his crops fail. As someone who has been farming for last couple of years, let me tell you, it is bloody hard to get a successful crop, and 10 times harder if you are trying to grow organically. Meanwhile there is this beautiful animal, that we have domesticated over millenia, who provides us with milk and meat (not in India) by eating what we can't and even eating our waste (cows are fed deoiled cakes, waste from breweries, waste from grain and pulse mills etc).
The point that many of these documentaries make is that we feed them food we can eat ourselves and that is a good point. But they fail to see that this is another western concept called feedlot or grain feeding. They used to have so much surplus grains that they used to feed it to their cattle. Over years, their population and demands increased and so it increased the demands on their grains. They didn't have to go that way. They could've followed what the rest of the world did and that was to let the animals eat pasture grass, which they naturally did and not convert that land into fields. Many US farms are returning to this pasture based feeding with very little supplement given to the cows for maintenance.
The West, especially the US, have always dealt in excess and now they are seeing the pitfalls of that. The US, despite having such low population compared to us SE-Asian countries consumes massive amounts of energy, even much more than India. And instead of limiting that wasteful excess, they went after the low hanging fruit and that's agriculture.
If human population and our lifestyles of excess aren't curtailed, then sooner or later, even plant based agriculture won't be productive enough or clean enough to stop our downfall. And that's why I'd prefer that we deal with the underlying reasons rather the outlier symptoms.
There are a lot more things I want to say, but this has been enough OT for the thread I believe. But if anyone believes that we can survive just on plant agriculture, I would just request you to try and eat only what you grow. Try that for just 1 year and your opinions will change. Most of us city-dwellers have lost that 'survival instinct' because for us getting food is not a big concern anymore. That instinct comes rushing back when you start farming, especially when it's your only source of income/nutrition.
I did not know this https://www.firstpost.com/health/mo...olerant-we-just-dont-know-it-yet-7780051.html , i want to try going dairy free for a few weeks, i only have it in tea thrice a day and a bowl of curd daily. I guess curd is fine because its fermented.
blr_p
Skilled
There is no article. A trailer for an upcoming documentary was posted. I looked up the website for that documentary and found these quotes.
It gives you an idea what this documentary is about. It's preachy.
Couple of points
It's true in the south. Cows can be slaughtered at 14 years in my state as I would imagine is the case in other neighbouring southern states. We don't have a beef industry here and so there is no cattle rustling and consequent lynching that occurs up north. Not only can a farmer depend on a cow for milk in case of crop failure he can also sell it to the abattoir when its productive life is over. We'd like to keep things that way and not have the north dictate how we live down south
True for city dwellers but there are advocates/evangelists for this kind of lifestyle.
This guy is a big big believer in growing your own as well as going raw.
Last edited:
Since I posted this, here is a debunk of this video
Bhaalu
Recruit
Imho this is a very apt and mature response. I believe proving everything according to science is a good idea but not always doable and if something is beneficial for decades then a person should stick to it regardless. I remember my father who was mocked in 90s for fasting regularly and was asked to eat every 3 hours by people of science and now the same lot goes on about how intermittent fasting is the best for him. So people should think twice before randomly scrapping off their family traditions and dadi ke nuskhe since they are essentially a form of clinical trials running across generations.
Never has any science told people to feed every 3 hours. The science of glucagon and insulin was known quite long time ago. What you could say is that scientific approach requires time to experiement and determine the cause-effect relationships AND these results have to overcome the extremely egoistical and political people at the helm of scientific organizations, committees, bodies etc.
A case in point: fasting as a "treatment" to alleviate diabetes is known for more than a decade. Heck, I have been on one meal a day since 2011-12 (when intermittent fasting was not known to practically anyone). Doctors also knew about it (mostly due to experimentation done on prisoners during wars - so we have a wealth of knowledge from WW1 days). Some doctors put their clients on it and got great results. But there was no official statement from the Doctor's associations due to several reasons (most important factor pharma lobbies) - due to which I guess even today fasting is NOT one of the official ways to control blood sugar.
The benefit of science is to weed out stupid traditions which have no cause-effect relationship and hence perhaps doesnt warrant sticking with.
It is the un-educated people who follow "science-backed" claims made by non-scientific people which causes issues like the one you mention.