 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / September 2006Soy vs Cow
SOY versus COW'S MILK Let's compare 100-gram portions (3.5 ounces) of soymilk vs. cow's milk: Cow's milk has 61 calories. Soymilk has 33 calories. Cow's milk contains 3.34 grams of fat. Soymilk contains 1.91 grams of fat. Cow's milk has 14 milligrams of cholesterol and no dietary fiber. Soymilk contains 1.3 grams of fiber and has zero cholesterol. Cow's milk contains a full range of amino acids. Soymilk also contains a full range of amino acids. Both contain plenty of protein. Cow's milk actually has one- half gram more protein than the 100-gram portion of soymilk. Soymilk contains greater amounts of certain amino acids including arginine, alanine, aspartic acid, and glycine. Arginine slows the growth of cancers by strengthening the immune system. Alanine aids in the metabolism of sugars. Aspartic acid increases stamina and plays a vital role in metabolism, acting as an anti-oxidant. Glycine is necessary for brain and nervous system functioning and muscle/energy metabolism. When milk is pasteurized, Vitamins A, C, and D are destroyed. The same can be said for those vitamins when soymilk is manufactured. Soymilk does contain more than four times the amount of thiamin (Vitamin B-1) and nearly twice the amount of niacin (Vitamin B-3) as does cow's milk. Soymilk also contains more magnesium, copper, and manganese than does cow's milk. In order to absorb calcium, one needs magnesium. Copper also aids in bone formation. One early sign of osteoporosis is a deficiency in copper. Soymilk contains twelve times the amount of copper as does cow's milk. Soymilk also contains 42 times the amount of manganese as does cow's milk. Manganese is also needed for bone formation. People with anemia rely upon manganese for iron storage. Trace amounts of manganese are essential for neural transmissions, protein metabolism, and many other body functions. http://www.soytoy.com/soyvsmilk.html Copyright 2001 Robert Cohen http://www.soytoy.com http://www.notmilk.com > SOY versus COW'S MILK > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > transmissions, protein metabolism, and many other body > functions. So why does Toxic Carnivore (TC) say soy is not food? George > http://www.soytoy.com/soyvsmilk.html > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://www.notmilk.com > > SOY versus COW'S MILK > > [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > So why does Toxic Carnivore (TC) say soy is not food? Umm........'cause he's a nipplehead? > George > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > > > http://www.notmilk.com > SOY versus COW'S MILK > [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > http://www.notmilk.com http://www.westonaprice.org/soy/index.html http://www.westonaprice.org/mythstruths/mtsoy.html http://www.westonaprice.org/soy/tragedy.html http://www.westonaprice.org/soy/complaints.html http://www.westonaprice.org/soy/infant.html http://www.westonaprice.org/soy/ploy.html TC Super. You present facts as they. What, then, is all the hullabaloo about soy milk, and especially that made from genetically modified soy? James http://www.gmoafrica.org > SOY versus COW'S MILK > [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > http://www.notmilk.com > Super. You present facts as they. What, then, is all the hullabaloo > about soy milk, and especially that made from genetically modified soy? Soy is not human food. http://www.westonaprice.org/soy/index.html http://www.westonaprice.org/mythstruths/mtsoy.html http://www.westonaprice.org/soy/tragedy.html http://www.westonaprice.org/soy/complaints.html http://www.westonaprice.org/soy/infant.html http://www.westonaprice.org/soy/ploy.html TC > > Super. You present facts as they. What, then, is all the hullabaloo > > about soy milk, and especially that made from genetically modified soy? > > Soy is not human food. but fluids drawn from a diseased animal are? > http://www.westonaprice.org/soy/index.html > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > TC · From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. · Here we see plowing: http://tinyurl.com/8fmxe and here harrowing: http://tinyurl.com/zqr2v both of which kill animals by crushing, mutilation, suffocation, and exposing them to predators. We can see that planting kills in similar ways: http://tinyurl.com/k6sku and killing with insecticides should be apparent even to you: http://tinyurl.com/ew2j5 Harvesting kills of course by crushing and mutilation, and it also removes the surviving animals' food and exposes them to predators: http://tinyurl.com/otp5l In the case of rice there's additional killing as well caused by flooding: http://tinyurl.com/qhqx3 and later by draining after a new environment is established, then destroyed before harvest: http://tinyurl.com/mte43 Please explain how you think cattle eating grass: http://tinyurl.com/q7whm could cause anywhere near as much suffering and death. good post there are plenty of 'medical labs' which says this is good, this is bad. and equal number of labs which refutes them. so, who to believe? drink in moderation, go organic. > SOY versus COW'S MILK > [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > http://www.notmilk.com > good post No, it isn't. It's from a site that sells soymilk makers. > there are plenty of 'medical labs' which says this is good, this is > bad. And plenty of crass soymilk machine peddlers who say soy is good, milk is bad. Go figure! > and equal number of labs which refutes them. > > so, who to believe? Not someone shilling soymilk machines. > drink in moderation, Beer? > go organic. No f.cking way. Stop shilling for the organic industry and get them to play by the same rules -- truth in labelling, product testing, etc. -- everyone else has to. > banronhomo-ton@hotmail.com wrote: > > SOY versus COW'S MILK [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > > > http://www.soytoy.com/soyvsmilk.html Note, Nicky: THIS IS A SPIEL TO SELL SOY MILK MACHINES. DUMMY. > > Copyright 2001 Robert Cohen Cohen's not a scientist. > > http://www.soytoy.com > > > > http://www.notmilk.com One of the worst pseudoscience sites on the web. John Mark Karr has murdered millions of little girls because of all the publicity he has engendered. The media are his "shills." So this 'Pseudo news' has to be terminated. Oh, it is assumed he's done all this killing---there is no real proof. > > good post > [quoted text clipped - 83 lines] > > One of the worst pseudoscience sites on the web. Ronald Homo-ton wrote: > John Mark Karr is beside the point. Cohen isn't a scientist and the bullshit he uses to sell his "soy toys" is crass marketing spiel and his main website is a steaming load of scare-mongering horseshit. He's been disavowed by other more notable vegan activists for his dishonesty and his over-the-top nonsense. cheenko up-chucky--the point is that milk kills far more pee-pulls and animals than soy, notwithstanding the utter madness which dh promotes. > Ronald Homo-ton wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > other more notable vegan activists for his dishonesty and his > over-the-top nonsense. Ronald Homo-ton wrote: > the point is that milk kills far more pee-pulls and > animals than soy, No, it doesn't. You're a fruit loop. > Ronald Homo-ton wrote: > > > the point is that milk kills far more pee-pulls and > > animals than soy, > > No, it doesn't. You're a fruit loop. Yes. Yes it does. You're a liar. Ronald Homo-ton put on sock puppet #4 and wrote: > > You're a fruit loop. > > Yes. *Finally* we agree on *something*, dumb a.s. > Ronald Homo-ton put on sock puppet #4 and wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > *Finally* we agree on *something*, dumb a.s. How come the new nym Goo? No one paying attention when you post as Leif or Eden? Ronald Homo-ton's sock puppet #4 wrote: > > > > You're a fruit loop. > > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > How come Your grammar is as atrocious as your half-baked, pseudo-scientific, contrarian approach to nutrition. > No one paying attention when you post as Leif or Eden? You're very confused about my identity, but that's hardly surprising. Chalk it up to your malnutrition. Bawly is a good guy, Chinko is not no good no more. that's all the "science" we need. > > Ronald Homo-ton put on sock puppet #4 and wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > No one paying attention when you post as Leif or Eden? In a fit of malnourished dementia, Ronald Homo-ton whipped out sock puppet #12 and wrote: > Bawly is a good guy Your sock puppets don't get to vouch for each other's credibility, Ronnie. > Chinko is not no good no more. Maybe you'd see things a lot more clearly if you had a nice cold milkshake. Twat. > that's all the "science" we need. You run from science and straight into soymilk machine marketing superstitions spun by a far-out former real estate salesman. > > > Ronald Homo-ton put on sock puppet #4 and wrote: > > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > > > No one paying attention when you post as Leif or Eden? soy milk, rice dream ice cream, veg. chocolate syrup in blender. Try it, chyko-----you will be glad you did. Lil, fat Ronnie assures you it's : "yum, yum, drink-em -up." > In a fit of malnourished dementia, Ronald Homo-ton whipped out sock > puppet #12 and wrote: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > > > > > No one paying attention when you post as Leif or Eden? Ronald Homo-ton wore sock puppet #12 when he wrote: > soy milk Also called "starch water." > rice dream ice cream It's not "ice cream" -- it would require milk to be called that. It's labelled here as a "non-dairy dessert." It's just starchy water and sugar and flavorings. > veg. chocolate syrup in blender. Why "veg" chocolate syrup? What's wrong with the real stuff? And is "veg" chocolate syrup a product of slave practices like the real stuff? > Try it There are other things I'd prefer to consume if I were inclined to indulge in sugary foods. > Lil, fat Ronnie assures you As if I'd take the word of an effeminate little yob like you who constantly shifts nyms while mindlessly parroting the marketing bullshit of a disreputable scaremonger like Robert Cohen. > Ronald Homo-ton wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > other more notable vegan activists for his dishonesty and his > over-the-top nonsense. Perhaps you should take time to read the bibliography attached to the articles Cohen writes. There is plenty of science to refute the JUNK science churned out by the dairy industry and their funded "neutral" 3rd party researchers. Ronald Homo-ton's sock puppet #4 wrote: > > > John Mark Karr > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Perhaps you should take time to read the bibliography attached to the > articles Cohen writes. Veracity isn't established by the number of one's footnotes, but rather by the accuracy with which one portrays the information contained therein. The tendency among "alternative healers" is to mislead via the (mis)use of abstracts rather than full studies when making health claims and drawing connections. Dr Steven Bratman has dealt with this issue at length: In 1998, [Bratman] closed his medical practice to become the Medical Director at Prima Health, a division of Prima Publishing (now part of Random House). In that capacity, he reviewed existing literature on alternative medicine and discovered that it was based on abstracts and secondary citations rather than the original studies. To bridge this gap, he directed a massive research program that ultimately obtained the full text version of 11,000 studies, and involved the translation of hundreds of non-English articles. Analysis of these studies revealed a pervasive pattern of scientific errors in existing material. www.AltMedConsult.com Cohen's misled others repeatedly about his bona fides -- claiming to be engaged in scientific research. He's not a scientist, nor does he work with "independent researchers." Like Lesley, he combs through abstracts looking for his favored nit to pick and then makes connections researchers reject (e.g., in Lesley's case, she insisted one particular study found that fats were "addictive" and continued to promote her ignorance even after the study's authors, alarmed by such claims in the popular media, issued strong denials that their research had ever made such a finding). > There is plenty of science to refute the JUNK science churned out by ...Robert Cohen, ex-real estate agent turned soy milk machine marketer and irrational anti-dairy scaremonger. so sayeth usenet/google's favorite eye-legal eye-mo-grynt, a humanoid mexican hula-bean. > Ronald Homo-ton's sock puppet #4 wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > ...Robert Cohen, ex-real estate agent turned soy milk machine marketer > and irrational anti-dairy scaremonger. Racist Ronald Homo-ton donned sock puppet #4 and, unable to come up with a clever or well-reasoned response, decided instead to engage in a little blatant racism: > so sayeth usenet/google's favorite eye-legal eye-mo-grynt, a humanoid > mexican hula-bean. Leave it to a leftist fruitloop to show his true racist colors. To quote Governor Rick Perry, "Well adios to you, too, mofo." > > Ronald Homo-ton's sock puppet #4 wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > ...Robert Cohen, ex-real estate agent turned soy milk machine > > marketer and irrational anti-dairy scaremonger. > Racist Ronald Homo-ton donned sock puppet #4 and, unable to come up with > a clever or well-reasoned response, decided instead to engage in a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Leave it to a leftist fruitloop to show his true racist colors. To quote > Governor Rick Perry, "Well adios to you, too, mofo." You prove your stupidity at every opportunity Chico Coprophagy. You believe that consuming the fluids from diseased animals is healthy and necessary. That alone proves you are a brainless twat. > > > Ronald Homo-ton's sock puppet #4 wrote: > > > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > > ...Robert Cohen, ex-real estate agent turned soy milk machine > > > marketer and irrational anti-dairy scaremonger. Rudy is turning good guy? > > Racist Ronald Homo-ton donned sock puppet #4 and, unable to come up with > > a clever or well-reasoned response, decided instead to engage in a [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > > > > ...Robert Cohen, ex-real estate agent turned soy milk machine > > > > marketer and irrational anti-dairy scaremonger. Thanks for posting that. The science speaks for itself. Perhaps cow's milk is addictive which causes such a heated response? > so sayeth usenet/google's favorite eye-legal eye-mo-grynt, a humanoid > mexican hula-bean. [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > ...Robert Cohen, ex-real estate agent turned soy milk machine marketer > > and irrational anti-dairy scaremonger. http://www.westonaprice.org/soy/index.html http://www.westonaprice.org/mythstruths/mtsoy.html http://www.westonaprice.org/soy/tragedy.html http://www.westonaprice.org/soy/complaints.html http://www.westonaprice.org/soy/infant.html http://www.westonaprice.org/soy/ploy.html TC > Thanks for posting that. The science speaks for itself. > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > > ...Robert Cohen, ex-real estate agent turned soy milk machine marketer > > > and irrational anti-dairy scaremonger. > http://www.westonaprice.org/soy/index.html > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > http://www.westonaprice.org/soy/ploy.html Notice he is quoting one source and one might assume they are not balanced. This is like waiting for Fox News to admit Dubya is political cluster f*uck. TC, ironjustice and Chung - we have our own Gong show. -DF > > http://www.westonaprice.org/soy/index.html > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > -DF I've yet to see anyone show weston price to be wrong. The quality of science will overwhelm the quantity any day. TC > I've yet to see anyone show weston price to be wrong. The quality of > science will overwhelm the quantity any day. And Bush has never lied to us. Wanna go hunting with Cheney? -DF > > I've yet to see anyone show weston price to be wrong. The quality of > > science will overwhelm the quantity any day. > > And Bush has never lied to us. Wanna go hunting with Cheney? > > -DF Instead of quaint little stabs in the dark, how about actually giving us information that supports your quaint little stab in the dark. TC >> > I've yet to see anyone show weston price to be wrong. The quality >> > of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Instead of quaint little stabs in the dark, how about actually giving > us information that supports your quaint little stab in the dark. Oh please not that song and dance again. Anytime someone points to a article that shows your are out to lunch you claim the authors are on the take. Nice position, Chung hides behind religion and you wallow in paranoia - tis a sad world we live in. Let's play for a minute. I want to how deep your paranoia reall is. Yes or no, are all the contributors to the Harvard School Of Public Health on the take? Yes or no, are all the members of the Center for Science in the Public Interest on the take? Yes or no, are all the members of the Amercian Academy of Pediatics on the Take? -DF > >> > I've yet to see anyone show weston price to be wrong. The quality > >> > of [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > the take. Nice position, Chung hides behind religion and you wallow in > paranoia - tis a sad world we live in. and you are above all that, eh? ok, sure...... you are no different, except that all you do is opininate. You never back it up with anything. you are as bad a troll as we see around here. > Let's play for a minute. I want to how deep your paranoia reall is. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > -DF > you are no different, except that all you do is opininate. You never > back it up with anything. you are as bad a troll as we see around > here. Seems you forgot to answer the questions below. Maybe because each of the below are above reproach, and each group thinks your position on nutrition is flat out silly if not imbecilic? You hide behind a dentist turned nutritionist because he sees the same ghosts behind the trees as you do. Talk about birds of feather. -DF >> Let's play for a minute. I want to how deep your paranoia reall is. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> on >> the Take? > > you are no different, except that all you do is opininate. You never > > back it up with anything. you are as bad a troll as we see around [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > -DF I'll answer your questions if you answer mine. > >> Let's play for a minute. I want to how deep your paranoia reall is. > >> > >> Yes or no, are all the contributors to the Harvard School Of Public > >> Health on the take? No. > >> Yes or no, are all the members of the Center for Science in the > >> Public > >> Interest on the take? No. > >> Yes or no, are all the members of the Amercian Academy of Pediatics > >> on > >> the Take? No. Only about 75 to 80% of research in the US is paid for by industry. That is not *all*, just *most* of all science. That also does not mean that all scientists who work on papers funded by industry are, as you put it, "on the take". But it certainly raises questions about the reason why the research is undertaken in the first place, then it raises questions regarding the collection and interpretation of the data. Was all bias removed from the process? Or was the process biased to get specific answers to the question posed by the researchers? And of course, the funder gets to pick the question being asked in the first place. Like "Is whole wheat better than refined white wheat?" as opposed to the question "How does wheat compare to other real fresh whole foods?". No, *all* scientists, medical people and researchers are not "on the take". But there are enough of them that are "on the take" doing all that research and trumpeting the results by press conference as opposed to quietly publishing the results like most real non-on-the-take scientists tend to do. When up 80% of researchers are funded by industry, and the requirements to report these ties are lax, how do you determine what is real science and what is marketting? Real scientists can't even tell the difference without a great deal of applied cynicism and research on who's working to whom. When the Atkins diet was the rage a couple of years ago, the grain industry funded dozens of "studies" that trumpetted how whole grains were so much better than refined grains. They produced enough "studies" and got enouh press and paid for enough advertizing thruout the media, that it is now common "knowledge" amongst the masses that "whole grains are good". That is how industry bias skews "science" and common opinion. Is this paranoia on my part? Nope, it is the reality of having a massive research industry where 70 to 80% of the science being done is paid for by the food and/or pharmaceutical industry. Now here is my question: Are all "scientific" researchers completely free of bias? TC >> I've yet to see anyone show weston price to be wrong. The >> quality of >> science will overwhelm the quantity any day. > > And Bush has never lied to us. Wanna go hunting with Cheney? ==================== Better that than a drive with teddy 'burb' kennedy.... > -DF |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.