Message Boards » Food and Nutrition

TOPIC: What's the healthiest type of milk??

« Prev 1
« Prev 1
 
Ic_disabled_photos
Topic has been inactive for 30 days or more and images have been disabled.
Display All Images
September 24, 2009 9:44 PM
I used to drink Whole milk, and I absolutely LOVED the taste. Honestly, it's one of the best tastes in the food/beverage world for me. Now, since I've been on a diet and am trying to lose weight and be in better shape, I've switched to Fat-free milk. It's ok, and I don't mind using it for my cereal and whatnot, but the taste is definitely not anywhere as satisfying as Whole milk. Then there's also Low-fat, as well as Skim, and even Soy milk. So what's the deal?? Which one is healthiest for you?

I don't mind drinking Fat-free milk, and I will continue to do so if it is indeed the healthiest choice. However, I've heard that it's better to drink whole not only for nutritional values, but for over all hunger satisfaction control. I don't know if this is true or not, so please shed some light on this subject for me. Feel free to give your own personal opinions on your favorite type of milk, but please make sure to give some actual facts about why it is healthy, as well.

Thanks!!
September 24, 2009 9:51 PM
It all depends. If you can tolerate milk, it's a great source of calcium. Whole milk has 4% butter fat. I went from whole milk to 2%, then 1%, and now I think skim milk is fine. If you don't like the taste of skim milk, maybe try 1% or 2%.

Personally, I don't like soy milk unless it's flavoured. Which probably makes it less healthy for me. grumble
  232159
September 24, 2009 9:59 PM
Soy milk is pretty good for satistifaction value, partly because of the fiber, protein, and good fats. They vary in calories and fat and sugar content, so you have to check the label (get a low sugar one, but one with a couple grams of fat if you like a creamy taste). Also, it has isoflavinoids, which help delay aging.


My favorite was Whole Foods 365 Days brand, but if you're new to soy milk, 8th Continent, though it has more sugar, is a good transition one. They are all so different tasting - some nutty, some plain, some thin, some creamy - so don't give up until you find one that you like.
September 24, 2009 10:19 PM
don't think cow milk is good for the adult body its not the easiest to digest and can usually complicate hormones this has been my experience as well a most of the people I know. I perfer to use either soy milk with no added sugar or rice milk made from brown rice tastes great and healthy too.
  48274
September 25, 2009 1:48 AM
There was a study done that eating low fat dairy products helps u loose weight. obviously fat free/skim is the best choice. i prefer organic, once u taste organic u wont drink regular milk again.
  235112
September 25, 2009 4:37 AM
Keep on drinking whole. IMO...the fat isn't something to fear. But keep calories and servings in check, of course.
September 25, 2009 5:24 AM
Whatever you decide: whole, 2%, skim....go organic. The growth hormones and antibiotics can cause problems with the female repoductive system.

I tried rice milk and I liked it alot, even my picky daughter liked it.
September 25, 2009 9:17 AM
I love Soy Milk. IMO, cow's milk just causes problems because of all the hormone etc; that the cows are given. So I stick with Organic Soy Milk.
  233247
September 25, 2009 9:24 AM
I don't think you have to sacrifice taste to get a healthy option. Try 2%. As long as you have the calories for it, it's a healthy choice.

I have started drinking 2% goat's milk, since I am alleric to cow's milk. I've heard it is suppose to be particularly healthy but I'd have to research to get the reasons. It taste the same as cow's milk.
September 25, 2009 9:28 AM
personally I prefer Raw Milk - it is healthier then pasteurized milk. and tastes alot better (no we don't live on a farm). If it is too thick it can be watered down -this is what a friend of mine does with hers since she is used to 2% milk.
. "pasteurization destroys or reduces many nutrients in milk, including vitamins A and C and B complex" Eat Fat Lose Fat page 86
  277978
September 25, 2009 10:09 AM
QUOTE:

I don't think you have to sacrifice taste to get a healthy option. Try 2%. As long as you have the calories for it, it's a healthy choice.

I have started drinking 2% goat's milk, since I am alleric to cow's milk. I've heard it is suppose to be particularly healthy but I'd have to research to get the reasons. It taste the same as cow's milk.


A mother I knew who wasn't able to physically supply enough milk for her newborn daughter supplemented with goat milk.
  72489
September 25, 2009 10:19 AM
I drink "Calorie Countdown" by Hood. It's not milk- it's a 'dairy beverage'. Check out their website if you're curious. I love it- it has half the calories of skim milk, with almost identical nutrients. flowerforyou
September 25, 2009 10:33 AM
QUOTE:

Whatever you decide: whole, 2%, skim....go organic. The growth hormones and antibiotics can cause problems with the female repoductive system.

I tried rice milk and I liked it alot, even my picky daughter liked it.


I'm a veterinarian and I work a lot with dairy farmers and dairy cows. I would never drink organic milk because I see the lower quality of milk that is put into that system on a daily basis - when you can't treat a cow with antibiotics when she has an infection in her udder, it makes the milk pretty gross. I would just not drink it since I've seen it come out of the cow that way. Conventional dairy farmers are able to treat cows with these infections with antibiotics to help the cow clear the infection and keep her healthy. Because the cow is treated, her milk is not able to be sold and therefore does not reach your table (milk is tested for antibiotic residue before it is processed). Modern science can also find NO difference between milk from cows given growth hormones and cows that are just using their own growth hormones. The growth hormone that can be given as a injection (rBST) is structurally identical to the hormone that the cow's body naturally produces. One more point - if you were to actually ingest the hormone rBST by itself, it would be broken down by your digestive system like any other molecule you eat.

I like the idea of organic in theory, it just VERY infequently happens the way most consumers picture. The milk is also pasturized differently from regular milk. Because there is more bacterial in it, it is pasturized at a higher temperature (which is why it has a longer expiration date - and doesn't always even need to be refridgerated before opening, like the horizon milk boxes). I don't know if it affects the nutritional content, but I did just read an article in a dairy journal about the difference in nutritional value between regular milk and unpasturized milk, and most of the nutrition is affected at temps higher than that for regularly pasturized milk.

I am not intending to start a debate over organic and hormones in milk. I am just providing some comments from someone who works with and for the dairy industry every day. My primary interest is in humane care of cows, and I just don't see that at the organic farms I've been on. Take it as you like it, eat what you like. Just some thoughts.
September 25, 2009 11:07 AM
QUOTE:

I'm a veterinarian and I work a lot with dairy farmers and dairy cows. I would never drink organic milk because I see the lower quality of milk that is put into that system on a daily basis - when you can't treat a cow with antibiotics when she has an infection in her udder, it makes the milk pretty gross. I would just not drink it since I've seen it come out of the cow that way. Conventional dairy farmers are able to treat cows with these infections with antibiotics to help the cow clear the infection and keep her healthy. Because the cow is treated, her milk is not able to be sold and therefore does not reach your table (milk is tested for antibiotic residue before it is processed). Modern science can also find NO difference between milk from cows given growth hormones and cows that are just using their own growth hormones. The growth hormone that can be given as a injection (rBST) is structurally identical to the hormone that the cow's body naturally produces. One more point - if you were to actually ingest the hormone rBST by itself, it would be broken down by your digestive system like any other molecule you eat.

I like the idea of organic in theory, it just VERY infequently happens the way most consumers picture. The milk is also pasturized differently from regular milk. Because there is more bacterial in it, it is pasturized at a higher temperature (which is why it has a longer expiration date - and doesn't always even need to be refridgerated before opening, like the horizon milk boxes). I don't know if it affects the nutritional content, but I did just read an article in a dairy journal about the difference in nutritional value between regular milk and unpasturized milk, and most of the nutrition is affected at temps higher than that for regularly pasturized milk.

I am not intending to start a debate over organic and hormones in milk. I am just providing some comments from someone who works with and for the dairy industry every day. My primary interest is in humane care of cows, and I just don't see that at the organic farms I've been on. Take it as you like it, eat what you like. Just some thoughts.



From: http://www.preventcancer.com/consumers/general/milk.htm


Why is American Milk Banned in Europe?

American dairy milk is genetically-modified unless it’s labeled “NO rBGH”
Genetically-engineered bovine growth hormone (rBGH) in milk increases cancer risks.
American dairy farmers inject rBGH to dairy cows to increase milk production.

European nations and Canada have banned rBGH to protect citizens from IGF-1 hazards.

Monsanto Co., the manufacturer of rBGH, has influenced U. S. product safety laws permitting the sale of unlabeled rBGH milk. (Monsanto would lose billions of dollars if rBGH were banned in America.)

Q. Is there any milk not contaminated with rBGH and IGF-1?
A. Yes. Milk that is clearly labeled “NO rBGH” is free of rBGH and does not contain excess levels of IGF-1.

Q. What about cheeses?
A. American-made cheeses are contaminated with rBGH and excess levels of IGF-1 unless they’re labeled “NO rBGH”. Imported European cheeses are safe since Europe has banned rBGH.


IGF-1 and Milk: Q&A

Q. What is IGF-1?
A. Insulin-like Growth Factor 1 (IGF-1)is a normal growth factor. Excess levels have been increasingly linked by modern research to human cancer development and growth.

Q. How does IGF-1 get into milk?
A. In 1994, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the use of the recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH). According to rBGH manufacturers, injections of rBGH causes cows to produce up to 20 percent more milk. The growth hormone also stimulates the liver to increase IGF-1 levels in the milk of those cows. Recently, Eli Lilly & Co., a manufacturer of rBGH, reported a ten-fold increase in IGF-1 levels in milk of cows receiving the hormone. IGF-1 is the same in humans and cows, and is not destroyed by pasteurization. In fact, the pasteurization process actually increases IGF-1 levels in milk.

Q. How does rBGH milk containing IGF-1, affect, humans?
A. After the rBGH milk is consumed, IGF-1 is not destroyed by human digestion. Instead, IGF-1 is readily absorbed across the intestinal wall. Additional research has shown that it can be absorbed into the bloodstream where it can effect other hormones.

Q. Is IGF-1 likely to increase the risk of specific kinds of cancer?
A. It is highly likely that IGF-1 promotes transformation of normal breast cells to breast cancers. In addition, IGF-1 maintains the malignancy of human breast cancer cells, including their invasiveness and ability to spread to distant organs. (Increased levels of IGF-1 have similarly been associated with colon and prostate cancers.) The prenatal and infant breast is particularly susceptible to hormonal influences. Such imprinting by IGF-1 may increase future breast cancer risks, and may also increase the sensitivity of the breast to subsequent unrelated risks such as mammography and the carcinogenic and estrogen-like effects of pesticide residues in food, particularly in pre-menopausal women.

Q. Are cows adversely affected by elevated IGF-1 levels?
A. Cows injected with rBGH show heavy localization of IGF-1 in breast (udder) epithelial cells. This does not occur in untreated cows. Cows are also affected in other ways by rBGH, through increased rates of mastitis, an udder infection. Industry data show up to an 80 percent incidence of mastitis in hormone-treated cattle, resulting in the contamination of milk with significant levels of pus. Mastitis requires the use of antibiotics to treat, which leaves residues to pass on through the milk for human consumption.

Q. What does the FDA say about IGF-1?
A. The FDA has trivialized evidence for increased levels in rBGH milk and insist that any such increases in IGF-1 are not dangerous, and do not pose a health risk. However, a 1990 study by Monsanto, the leading maker of rBGH, explicitly revealed statistically significant evidence of growth promoting effects. Feeding relatively low doses of IGF-1 to mature rats for only two weeks resulted in statistically significant and biologically highly significant systemic effects: increased body weight; increased liver weight; increased bone length; and decreased epiphyseal width. The FDA has failed to investigate the effects of long-term feeding of IGF-1 and treated milk on growth. Furthermore, the FDA has been hostile to the labeling of rBGH milk. The agency has prohibited dairy producers and retailers from labeling their milk as "hormone-free," The FDA states that such labeling could be "false or misleading" under federal law. Monsanto is suing several milk producers for using the label.

Q. What have other scientists said about IGF-1?
A. Concerns about increased levels of IGF-1 in milk from cows treated with rBGH are not new. In 1990, the National Institutes of Health Consensus panel on rBGH expressed concerns about adverse health effects of IGF-1 in rBGH milk, calling for further study on health impacts, particularly infants. In 1991, the Council on Scientific Affairs of the American Medical Association stated:" Further studies will be required to determine whether the ingestion of higher than normal concentrations of bovine insulin-like growth factor is safe for children, adolescents and adults." Unfortunately, these studies were never done,

HERE ARE THREE THINGS THAT YOU CAN DO:

1. Do not buy milk from cows treated with rBGH. Unless the milk-label states “NO rBGH”, you can assume the milk is contaminated. rBGH has become so widely used by dairy farmers. Most health food stores sell rBGH-free milk.

2. Contact your local supermarket and find out if they have a policy regarding rBGH and milk. Make clear that you would like rBGH-free milk.

3. Write to the FDA and express your concern that they are restricting the labeling of rBGH-free milk.



References:

Epstein, S. S. Potential public health hazards of biosynthetic milk
hormones. International Journal of Health Services, 20:73-84, 1990.

Epstein, S. S. Unlabeled milk from cows treated with biosynthetic
growth hormones: A case of regulatory abdication. International Journal of Health Services, 26(1):173-185, 1996.



CONTACT:

Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., Chairman

Cancer Prevention Coalition
2121 West Taylor Street, M/C 922

Chicago, IL 60612
(312) 996-2297
September 25, 2009 1:18 PM
Interesting reference. There is no endorsement on the website by the American Medical Association, and I also am surprised that the only references sited are written by the founder of the site. Those two articles are also not from a peer reviewed journal, meaning that no other scientists or doctors had to approve the research behind the articles and make sure they were scientifically sound.

I also find the use of the word "genetic" incorrect. Genetic indicates some aspect of alteration of the DNA of cells, which rBST doesn't affect. It may increase IGF, but not through changing DNA of cells, but by hormonal stimulation.

Another thing to think about - Monsanto sold the product Posilac, which is the brand name for rBST to another drug company. If Monsanto had some much influence over the approval of this drug, don't you think the FDA would take this opportunity since it is no longer connected to Monsanto to take the product off the market? Since the powerful company no longer owns it?

Also, there is no veterinary research which supports the statement that use of rBST causes more mastitis.

Just some thoughts. Certainly popular demand has swung the market such that it is really easy to find milk which comes from cows not treated with rBST, so it should be very easy for you to find a product you are more comfortable consuming.
Edited by blakgarnet On September 25, 2009 1:21 PM
September 25, 2009 1:20 PM
to be completely honest, I do eat a lot of dairy products (I want to support the industry I work for and love), but I also drink almond milk with cereal as it is lower in calorie and just as yummy as milk, and soymilk on occasion. Cow's milk is not right for every person and certainly everyone has their own opinions.
Edited by blakgarnet On September 25, 2009 1:20 PM
September 25, 2009 3:45 PM
I agree with the couple people who said to stick with whole milk. We need those milkfats to absorb the fat-soluble vitamins and calcium. I know it goes against all that we've been told in the low-fat diet world, but if you read this woman's article on healthy milk choices and understand what's really going on in the manufacturing process, you might just change your mind about milk. http://kellythekitchenkop.com/category/milk-healthy-options

I was not a whole milk drinker until about 2 months ago. I basically put it on my cereal or drank with a side of cookies, and skim was my choice because it's recommended to lose weight. Well, that all changed. I'm a firm believer in whole milk (minus the hormones).

So drink up and enjoy!
Edited by liz72 On September 25, 2009 3:46 PM
September 25, 2009 4:36 PM
i personally can't stand the taste of white milk by itself. and i'm not a fan of soy or almond milk or any other kind of milk. i have white milk in the morning with my shake...but i can't taste it so its all good. if i'm going to drink a glass of milk plain its chocolate milk. regular milk by itself literally makes me sick
September 25, 2009 6:46 PM
QUOTE:

I agree with the couple people who said to stick with whole milk. We need those milkfats to absorb the fat-soluble vitamins and calcium. I know it goes against all that we've been told in the low-fat diet world, but if you read this woman's article on healthy milk choices and understand what's really going on in the manufacturing process, you might just change your mind about milk. http://kellythekitchenkop.com/category/milk-healthy-options

I was not a whole milk drinker until about 2 months ago. I basically put it on my cereal or drank with a side of cookies, and skim was my choice because it's recommended to lose weight. Well, that all changed. I'm a firm believer in whole milk (minus the hormones).

So drink up and enjoy!


Great link! Thanks for sharing.
September 26, 2009 4:46 AM
QUOTE:

i personally can't stand the taste of white milk by itself. and i'm not a fan of soy or almond milk or any other kind of milk. i have white milk in the morning with my shake...but i can't taste it so its all good. if i'm going to drink a glass of milk plain its chocolate milk. regular milk by itself literally makes me sick


chocolate milk is one of my favorite things on the planet!!! Yumm
September 26, 2009 10:08 AM
SILK! :'D
I like the light soy milk.
  278926
September 26, 2009 10:21 AM
QUOTE:

SILK! :'D
I like the light soy milk.


Curious. I tried soy milk once and I hated it. It wasn't Silk tho. My daughter loves the Silk chocolate milk, but I am resistant to attempting the regular stuff again.

Is the taste of Silk...the light one...better than the other brands? Is there anything you can compare the taste to?

Thanks!
September 26, 2009 10:22 AM
I am new to drining milk. I use to be slightly lactose intolerant with it. But that has strangely gone away. I've been drinking 1% but after reading this I might move up. I don't drink alot of it. Mostly in cereal, in cooking or one 8oz glass for a recovery drink after strength training.

I tried skim and did not like the flavor. It seems that way with everything that is low fat or no fat. They have less flavor.
September 26, 2009 10:33 AM
QUOTE:

I am new to drining milk. I use to be slightly lactose intolerant with it. But that has strangely gone away. I've been drinking 1% but after reading this I might move up. I don't drink alot of it. Mostly in cereal, in cooking or one 8oz glass for a recovery drink after strength training.

I tried skim and did not like the flavor. It seems that way with everything that is low fat or no fat. They have less flavor.


I actually have always been lactose intolerant - my parents found out when I was 6 months old and hadn't grown appropriately. I was then switched to a special formula or something. For the lonest time growing up I hated milk since it made me feel bad, but as an adult, I have rediscovered it and other than a little gas, don't have a bad reaction. I started with skim and then moved to 2% in college for the creamy taste. I am now drinking skim for calorie reasons, although I drink much less since cereal is really a trigger food for me and I can eat it untilt eh cows come home (ha ha).
September 26, 2009 10:10 PM
Hm... well, it's kind of a unique taste I guess. D:
But I tend to like it better than regular milk.
Just my taste buds though, and the chocolate silk is awesome as well!
The vanilla is a little too sweet.
I usually had my silk over creal though, I rarely drink it alone.
  278926

Reply

Message Boards » Food and Nutrition

Posts by members, moderators and admins should not be considered medical advice and no guarantee is made against accuracy.