"Is Soy Milk the Most Nutritious Non-Dairy Milk?"
There is a constellation of new choices
in the dairy case these days, from almonds to oats,
such that major dairy corporations are going out of business.
But a set of recommendations on healthy beverage choice
from like 12 to 24 months of age cautioned
that these plant-based milks are not adequate nutritional substitutes
for dairy milk, with the exception of fortified soy milk.
The report and the press coverage immediately triggered an outcry
from the medical community for many reasons
including the concern around conflicts of interests,
as several of these endorsing organizations received funds
from the dairy industry, though one such organization is accused
of trying to cover that fact up
by removing the National Dairy Council from their list of sponsors
immediately after the report was released.
But what about the merits of the report?
Well, after weaning, milk of any kind is not required
and really shouldn't be relied upon as a main source of calories.
Children will be fine with water and healthy food.
If you are going to give kids milk,
there would seem to be a better choice.
Although cow's milk is rich in calcium,
it does not appear to clearly reduce fractures
and most plant-based milks on the market have the same amount.
More importantly, the consumption of cow's milk carries risks
including a potential association with type 1 diabetes onset,
anemia in toddlers, lactose intolerance,
cow's milk protein allergy, and infantile colic.
I've got a bunch of videos on those topics.
So the adverse effects from just normal consumption
of cow's milk must be compared against the risks
from plant-based milks, which are problematic
mainly when used inappropriately, meaning like to the exclusion
of most other foods: diets that are clearly inappropriate,
like the case of kwashiorkor in Atlanta,
because his diet was basically 99% rice milk.
Plant-based milks have the benefit
of being low in saturated fat, free of cholesterol,
and though the protein content is generally lower than in cow's milk,
plant-based milks are said to be richer in terms of fiber.
That's technically true, since cow's milk has zero fiber,
but the fiber contents of plant- based milks are pretty pitiful,
certainly compared to the whole foods from which they were derived.
I mean, a cup of soybeans themselves would have more than 10 grams,
but still soy milk is likely the least processed
out of all plant-based milks.
It's basically just soak, crush, cook, and strain,
and is said to be the only non-dairy milk that contains
the same amount of protein as cow's milk.
That may have once been true,
but now there's pea milk, which is also comparable protein-wise.
They all tend to have the same calcium and vitamin D levels
and fewer calories,
as many as five times fewer calories than cow's milk, in fact.
Soy milk has the additional benefit of reducing
breast cancer risk in girls and normalizing development.
Soy milk consumption is also associated
with lower prostate cancer risk in men.
And interventional studies suggest improved gut health
by boosting the growth of good bacteria.
Soy milk has anti-inflammatory effects,
lowering c-reactive protein levels,
has desirable effects on phosphorus metabolism compared to cow's milk,
significantly reduces free radical DNA damage compared
to rice milk or cow's milk,
prevents bone loss in postmenopausal women
when put to the test,
and can improve insulin resistance.
Soy milk can help with stroke rehab,
improving walking speed, exercise endurance,
grip strength, and muscle functionality,
as well as lower blood pressure in men and women better
than cow's milk, not to mention lowering your LDL cholesterol
as much as 25% after just 21 days.
It is quite clear that nutritionally soy milk is the best alternative
for replacing cow's milk in the human diet.
Yes, there are all sorts of benefits
of plant-based versus udder-based milks.
No casein, cholesterol, lactose, less saturated fat,
actually has a bit of fiber,
but what about the specter of anti-nutrients?
Is there even such a thing as anti-nutrients?
Longstanding evidence suggests that consuming a diet
rich in plant-based foods plays a significant role in prevention
and reduction of chronic diseases, such as cardiovascular disease,
cancer, stroke, dementia, diabetes, cataracts, and others.
Despite the need to increase plant-food consumption,
there have been some concerns raised about
whether they are beneficial because of the various
so-called anti-nutrient compounds they contain.
It's true there are some compounds when eaten
in high enough quantities -- especially when taken
in isolation -- that can have adverse effects.
Whole plant foods also contain thousands of other compounds
in the food matrix, though, many of which
counteract the potential effects of the anti-nutrients.
Plant-based diets are associated
with a reduced risk of lifestyle- induced chronic diseases.
The thousands of phytonutrients they contain
promote antioxidant defense, for example, reduce inflammation.
In some cases, what has been referred to as anti-nutrients
may, in fact, be therapeutic agents for various conditions.
See, for example, my video series on the role of phytates
in the prevention and treatment of cancer.
I don't want to end without emphasizing
one of the plant-based pros: no lactose.
People don't understand that the majority of adult humans
on Planet Earth are unable to digest cow's milk.
Throughout childhood, the enzyme you have that breaks down
the milk sugar lactose begins to decline in most individuals
throughout the world, which makes sense since milk is for babies.
Why would we need to digest it after weaning from the breast?
And so most people experience symptoms like bloating,
abdominal pain, intestinal gas,
and watery stool, or even nausea and vomiting.
The global prevalence estimate of lactose malabsorption
is more than 2 out of 3 people;
in the United States, it's more like 1 out of 3.
But 95% of Asians,
60% to 80% of African Americans and Ashkenazi Jews,
80% to 100 % of American Indians,
and 50 to 80 % of Hispanics have trouble digesting milk.
It's really mostly those of northern European origin
who can handle it throughout adulthood.
So to say everyone should drink milk seems like an example
of racial bias in federal nutrition policy.
It's like they're assuming everyone is of Northern European descent.
Overall, about 75% of the world's population,
including 25% of those in the United States,
lose their lactase enzymes after weaning.
To fight the vitamin D disease rickets,
they had to choose something in the food supply to fortify with vitamin D.
Choosing dairy is ironic,
since individuals of African ancestry, because of their darker skin,
are at particularly high risk for vitamin D deficiency,
yet most can't properly digest it.
But there is some good news.
For reasons like these,
Canada has recently removed dairy as a separate food group
in their national dietary guidance.
In 2019, the new Canada's Dietary Guidelines and food guide
were released, having undergone a thorough review and update
to emphasize the importance of consuming
more plant-based products.
Another major change was the removal of dairy
as a separate food group with --- wait for it ---
water included as the beverage of choice.
What a concept.
The attenuated emphasis on dairy products
and the increased focus on plant-based foods in Canada
were based on several parameters, including the removal
of industry-funded studies from consideration
as part of the evidence base.