The study you referenced doesn’t prove much in regard to this conversation, save that calcium in unfortified soy milk (or the use of certain fortificants in soy milk) isn’t as bioavailable as cows milk when given equal amounts of minerals. More importantly, actual absorption equivalent to that of cow milk is achieved by fortifying soy milk to a much higher concentration (preferably higher than 300 mg per cup). Most calcium fortified soy milks contain between 300 and 400 mg of calcium. Silk’s Protein Nutmilk for example contains a much higher 450 mg per cup, containing enough to result in around the same mass of calcium absorbed from a serving of cows milk. There is no evidence that these milks are nutritionally disadvantageous relative to cows milk.carnap wrote: ↑Fri Aug 24, 2018 3:09 pm
If found higher bio-availability with the milk. Milk has compounds that enhance absorption while soy has compounds that reduce. Also its not clear what you mean by "nutritionally complete fortified milk". There are no fortified milks that are "nutritionally complete", cow's milk is also not nutritionally complete for a human.
The authors in the study you referenced also stated:
Once again, this is not evidence that those who don’t drink cow’s milk are in any way disadvantaged by ingesting fortified soy milk. Furthermore, soymilks fortified with a particular kind of calcium carbonate fortificant (tcp) yields similar calcium absorption to that of cows milk. Here’s a much more recent study on this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20460239 Not that any of this matters, as no one (not even young children) gets all of their calcium from milks. Should there be a slight disparity in calcium absorption between the 2 kinds, parents should analyze the whole context of their children’ diets and find ways to include further consumption of calcium.Supplementation of the soya-bean beverage either with phosphorus and Ca or with P, Ca and methionine, to concentrations identical to those in milk, restored growth and bone mineralization.
That was a misnomer. Fortified soy milk (and other fortified plant milks) are recommend amongst dietitians and dietetic organizations as adequate replacements for cows milk.
I provided evidence (including a screenshot of the nutrient profiles of Protein Numilk). I also provided evidence of dietitians supporting the use of certain fortified milks as replacements for cow milk.
It refutes your bullshit claim about adequately fortified plant milks being nutritionally advantageous relative to cows milk.
The goal was not to establish that they were nutritionally similar, or even that bio-availability or rates of absorption are similar between cows milks and plant milks, because they are not. Plant milks must usually contain higher levels of calcium to render equivalent rates of absorption. The purpose of my argument is to establish what dietitians have already conceded; that appropriately fortified plant milks are adequate replacements for dairy milk, and are excellent sources of protein and calcium. Although, plant milks contain much lower levels of zinc, children do not cow milk primarily for zinc, and dairy isn’t even the the best source, which is why dietitians still promote soy protein isolate can as an adequate alternative. Other soy products (tofu) are more reliable source of zinc.carnap wrote: ↑Fri Aug 24, 2018 3:09 pm
But you actually didn't even establish that your instance was nutritionally similar, you cited a nutritional label which only lists a very narrow selection of nutrients. Its similar in some values but not others, for example, milk is a good source of zinc while the plant-milk isn't. Now it is similar in protein, calcium and a few other nutrients.
Furthermore, your claims about these nutritional benefits become rather nebulous, as soy milk contains benefits over cows milk including lower levels of sodium and is devoid of cholesterol and saturated fat. Again any “benefits” any particular milk claims to have over another is useless without the regarding the complete context of one’s diet.
Just curious, which "officials" are you talking about. You like to arbitrarily pick and choose which officials to listen to. For example, you've dismissed the largest body of nutrition professionals (the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics) as an excellent source of nutrition information because you personally disagree with their findings about appropriately planned vegan diets being suitable for all stages of life.
Almond milk is not an adequate replacement for dairy milk.
Vegan alternatives are always given qualifiers; that is they’re labeled “cashew” butter and not simply “butter” or “almond milk” rather than just “milk.” This implies that are not ordinary milk products, as @cornivore mentions here:carnap wrote: ↑Fri Aug 24, 2018 3:09 pmPeople are also using the various other mock dairy products as replacements and these are often worse than the milk case, for example, most vegan cheeses have no nutritional value at all. This is what is relevant in how food is labeled, labeling mock dairy products as "milk", "cheese" encourages people to use them as a replacements but that only makes sense if they are nutritionally similar.
Cornivore wrote:This really has nothing to do with nutrition though. Like the other court case already concluded, it doesn't make sense to argue that something like "I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter" would be misleading to people, and therefore should not be allowed to include the word butter, because you have to take it out of context to make this argument. Using the word in context is fine though, nobody has a problem with it, except the sleazy milk industry in this case (they are arguing that nobody can say it isn't milk, because it isn't milk—that nobody should be allowed to tell the truth)! Just like if you named something "I Can’t Believe It’s Not Milk", yet that's already what designating it as almond milk accomplishes, for example. They aren't calling it milk, they're calling it almondmilk, as in I can't believe it's not milk... because it's about the flavor and texture of it, not the nutrition facts
The label is not implying that both products are nutritionally similar, or even that one is more beneficial than the other, simply that the product can be served or eaten as an equivalent of the other. Many vegans are not looking for a plant-based butter that has an equivalent amount of vitamin A as dairy butter. i.e., they desire a product that tastes similar, has a similar texture, and can be used on foods in a similar fashion. The problem lies mainly in how foods are labeled. In fact, many of these alternatives are not designed to even be nutritional replacements, they’re mainly used to help facilitate an easy transition into a plan-based diet. Because this can be detrimental to the health of vegans (of all ages), it is important for food companies not to utilize deceptive advertising/marketing tactics of these products being nutritionally equivalent (or superior) alternatives to animal products, unless there is strong scientific evidence. The problem can also be countered with increased consumer-knowledge of the nutritional disparities of these vegan alternatives, and a push to fortify products lacking some of the nutrients that their animal-derived counterparts contain.
You implied that certain minerals cannot be fortified in vegan foods or taken in the form of a supplement, which is factually wrong.
Let me repeat there: Researchers have not made a clear association between calcium supplements and the risk of heart attack or stroke. http://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/25717 ... a-analysis Additionally, many people take doses that are far above rda. Many women for example, take between 1,000 or even 1,500 mg daily. Vegans are not putting themselves at an increased risk of heart disease by drinking calcium fortified plant milks.carnap wrote: ↑Fri Aug 24, 2018 3:09 pmThere is nothing deceptive in what I said, fortification is no different than supplements. Its the same form of calcium and the amounts can easily be just as high. Many plant-milks are now being super-fortified with calcium at levels of almost 500 mg per serving, for example, the one you referred to.
And I never presented the research as being conclusive, just that the research has been increasingly negative.
The study I linked is one of the most recent comprehensive reviews on the topic. So no, it is not "increasingly negative."
Of course it is a crusade against plant milks, which is why you implied that vegans are at an increased risk of heart disease by drinking fortified plant milkscarnap wrote: ↑Fri Aug 24, 2018 3:09 pmLastly saying things you don't agree with isn't a "crusade against plant milk". My primary argument here has been that mock dairy products shouldn't be referred to by "milk", "cheese", etc because they are in general nutritionally poor compared to dairy products. I reckon many vegans would agree when they weren't distracted with tribalism.
Also, I disagree with you. These products are labeled as “cheese” and “dairy” because of their culinary use, i.e. they are to be cooked and eaten as plant-based alternatives. If they are not nutritionally similar, than it should be made clear by the manufacturer.