Re: composition of whey/acid vs sweet whey

December 14, 2003

Mike-

Even so, a guy I know on another health/nutrition list posted calculations

that indicate that for every gram of lactic acid, the body recovers 0.8

grams of glucose for metabolism. I haven't checked them, but I expect

they're solid.

>My whey sits out for a few days and has lots of

>time to ferment, so there just **has** to be a difference in lactose

>content. And we need data for kefir whey for comparison!!

-

December 14, 2003

Um, Mike, all mammals give milk, by definition...

But I'm with you in that I've never pictured a whale giving milk. I

wonder where their nipples are.

Tom

--- In , " Anton " <

> One final remark is that the third link from has a chart

> comparing many different animal's milk, and I didn't even realize

> that half of them even made milk! So many opportunities for

> culinary experimentation! I can only wonder what whale's milk tastes

> like... not to mention wonder what it's like to milk a whale...

>

> Mike

December 15, 2003

--- In , " Tom " <cassiusdio@g...>

wrote:

> Um, Mike, all mammals give milk, by definition...

>

> But I'm with you in that I've never pictured a whale giving milk. I

> wonder where their nipples are.

>

> Tom

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

I kind of remember hearing something like that before, but I really

don't have a biology background. My knowledge filter was probably a

little off-kilter when I was young and I was supposed to learn all

this basic background world knowledge stuff. Sometime I'm going to

read a high-school biology textbook. But it's strange you never

hear about all those other milks out there, like rat's milk or cat's

milk. Maybe I just don't hang around in the right crowds.

Mike

December 17, 2003

Well, we also don't eat rats or cats, or horses or whales, so the fact

that we don't eat rats' milk or cats' milk, or horses' milk or whales'

milk, is not surprising per se. The taste of their flesh or milk is

probably either very similar to " normal " milk or flesh, so why go to

the trouble of killing or milking weird, cute, or hard to reach animals?

Tom

> > Um, Mike, all mammals give milk, by definition...

> >

> > But I'm with you in that I've never pictured a whale giving milk. I

> > wonder where their nipples are.

> >

> > Tom

> @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

>

> I kind of remember hearing something like that before, but I really

> don't have a biology background. My knowledge filter was probably a

> little off-kilter when I was young and I was supposed to learn all

> this basic background world knowledge stuff. Sometime I'm going to

> read a high-school biology textbook. But it's strange you never

> hear about all those other milks out there, like rat's milk or cat's

> milk. Maybe I just don't hang around in the right crowds.

>

> Mike

December 18, 2003

--- In , " Tom " <cassiusdio@g...>

wrote:

> Well, we also don't eat rats or cats, or horses or whales, so the

fact

> that we don't eat rats' milk or cats' milk, or horses' milk or

whales'

> milk, is not surprising per se. The taste of their flesh or milk is

> probably either very similar to " normal " milk or flesh, so why go to

> the trouble of killing or milking weird, cute, or hard to reach

animals?

>

> Tom

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

cats are not such a common food, but rats, horses, and whales are

staple foods for some places. it bothers me that we don't eat horses

in america too much because if people raised them properly that would

be a lot of excellent meat (and maybe milk too). i think there's

also some judeo-christian hocus-pocus about eating them.

but your point is a very good one in general as far as milk goes!

there's nothing practical about the culinary avant-gardism i

intimated...

mike parker

December 18, 2003

> In a message dated 12/18/03 1:28:55 PM Eastern Standard Time,

bwp@u...

> writes:

>

> > i think there's

> > also some judeo-christian hocus-pocus about eating them.

>

> I suggest, then, that you familiarize yourself a little better with

> judeo-christian hocus pocus. While there are some weird historical

comments about

> Vikings eating horse until they were Christianized, it is quite

enshrined in

> Christianity that it is evil to forbid the eating of *any* food.

>

Well, certainly in the Old Testament there are passages that forbid

the eating of certain foods, aren't there?

Where in Christianity is it " enshrined " that the forbidding of " any "

food is " evil " ?

> Chris

>

December 18, 2003

--- In , " droolmaster0 " <implode7@p...>

wrote:

> Well, certainly in the Old Testament there are passages that forbid

> the eating of certain foods, aren't there?

>

> Where in Christianity is it " enshrined " that the forbidding of " any "

> food is " evil " ?

As a Christian I thought I could clarify a few issues (though I don't know

anything about historical/religious biases against horse meat!). There

certainly are food laws in the Old Testament, and orthodox Jews still follow

them. But in Christianity, which also follows the New Testament, the coming

of Christ ushered in a new covenant, and the focus changed from " law " to

" grace " . Since man was sinful and " apart " from God, cleanliness laws and

animal sacrifice were required to maintain a relationship with Him, but after

Christ, the " perfect sacrifice " was crucified, he " paid the debt " of our sin.

We

can approach God in our imperfection because, in a sense, we are cloaked

with the righteousness of Christ.

Anyway, Christianity and Judaism differ in this essential point of law and

grace. Thus, when early Christians were trying to force the Judaic dietary

laws on one another, stepped in and said that as a Christian under the

new covenant, it was wrong to forbid foods for religious reasons. To do so

implies a lack of understanding of grace, and makes Christianity about

following rules... the very thing Christ came to change. Making Christianity

about rules (legalism) makes Christ's sacrifice meaningless... and though

many Christians do it, it is wrong.

So the " judeo " part of the hocus-pocus comment was accurate, but the

" Christian " part wasn't (though many people throughout history have

forbidden foods in the " name " of Christianity, I'm sure).

December 18, 2003

>

> > Well, certainly in the Old Testament there are passages that

forbid

> > the eating of certain foods, aren't there?

> >

> > Where in Christianity is it " enshrined " that the forbidding

of " any "

> > food is " evil " ?

>

> As a Christian I thought I could clarify a few issues (though I

don't know

> anything about historical/religious biases against horse meat!).

There

> certainly are food laws in the Old Testament, and orthodox Jews

still follow

> them. But in Christianity, which also follows the New Testament,

the coming

> of Christ ushered in a new covenant, and the focus changed

from " law " to

> " grace " . Since man was sinful and " apart " from God, cleanliness

laws and

> animal sacrifice were required to maintain a relationship with Him,

but after

> Christ, the " perfect sacrifice " was crucified, he " paid the debt "

of our sin. We

> can approach God in our imperfection because, in a sense, we are

cloaked

> with the righteousness of Christ.

>

> Anyway, Christianity and Judaism differ in this essential point of

law and

> grace. Thus, when early Christians were trying to force the Judaic

dietary

> laws on one another, stepped in and said that as a Christian

under the

> new covenant, it was wrong to forbid foods for religious reasons.

To do so

> implies a lack of understanding of grace, and makes Christianity

about

> following rules... the very thing Christ came to change. Making

Christianity

> about rules (legalism) makes Christ's sacrifice meaningless... and

though

> many Christians do it, it is wrong.

>

> So the " judeo " part of the hocus-pocus comment was accurate, but

the

> " Christian " part wasn't (though many people throughout history have

> forbidden foods in the " name " of Christianity, I'm sure).

>

Wasn't forbidding Catholics to eat meat on Friday forbidding foods

for religious reasons?

December 18, 2003

--- In , " droolmaster0 " <implode7@p...>

wrote:

> Wasn't forbidding Catholics to eat meat on Friday forbidding foods

> for religious reasons?

Good point! At the risk of offending Catholics on the list (which I REALLY

don't want to do, BTW), the Catholic church traditionally does (or has done)

several things that I think are in opposition with biblical Christian principles

of

being saved by grace and not by " works " (following rules). But so have plenty

of other church denominations, as well. Churches fall into error when they

take a " good idea " and change it into a mandate (do this, or you're sinning

and will go to hell!) For example, drinking alcohol. The bible forbids

drunkenness, so many Christians say that having a glass of wine is a " sin " .

But Jesus drank wine! He even changed water into wine at a wedding... I

think " thou shalt not " lists are like government, they have a strong tendency to

grow! People who are fearful and like to feel superior love long lists of what

not to do, because it makes being a good person easier, and they can look at

the people doing the things they don't and say to themselves " look how much

better I am than them " . This is a danger for all religious people (all people

period!), and one I frequently catch myself starting to do (about nutrition as

well).

Despite the Catholic Church and myriad other denominations, Christianity, as

laid out in the New Testament, DOES criticize the forbidding of foods as

un-Christian. So I guess it depends on your definition of Christianity. If

it's

the behavior and teaching of churches, then Christianity does forbid foods, it

it's what Christ laid out according to the scriptures, then it does not. So I

guess a more accurate statement would be, Christianity as a whole

sometimes DOES forbid foods, but it SHOULD NOT according to their own

scriptures.

December 18, 2003

Excellent!

Thanks,

Gene

>

> > Wasn't forbidding Catholics to eat meat on Friday forbidding

foods

> > for religious reasons?

>

> Good point! At the risk of offending Catholics on the list (which

I REALLY

> don't want to do, BTW), the Catholic church traditionally does (or

has done)

> several things that I think are in opposition with biblical

Christian principles of

> being saved by grace and not by " works " (following rules). But so

have plenty

> of other church denominations, as well. Churches fall into error

when they

> take a " good idea " and change it into a mandate (do this, or you're

sinning

> and will go to hell!) For example, drinking alcohol. The bible

forbids

> drunkenness, so many Christians say that having a glass of wine is

a " sin " .

> But Jesus drank wine! He even changed water into wine at a

wedding... I

> think " thou shalt not " lists are like government, they have a

strong tendency to

> grow! People who are fearful and like to feel superior love long

lists of what

> not to do, because it makes being a good person easier, and they

can look at

> the people doing the things they don't and say to themselves " look

how much

> better I am than them " . This is a danger for all religious people

(all people

> period!), and one I frequently catch myself starting to do (about

nutrition as

> well).

>

> Despite the Catholic Church and myriad other denominations,

Christianity, as

> laid out in the New Testament, DOES criticize the forbidding of

foods as

> un-Christian. So I guess it depends on your definition of

Christianity. If it's

> the behavior and teaching of churches, then Christianity does

forbid foods, it

> it's what Christ laid out according to the scriptures, then it does

not. So I

> guess a more accurate statement would be, Christianity as a whole

> sometimes DOES forbid foods, but it SHOULD NOT according to their

own

> scriptures.

>

December 18, 2003