On 12/05/2021 11:28, T i m wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
Spike wrote:
On 12/05/2021 08:05, T i m wrote:

Plus non-milks don't need to be homogenised so any potential risks
associated with that are eliminated and they contain 90% less
cholesterol etc.

As homo sapiens has, in the same way that it has developed a gene for
lactose digestion, developed to generate its own cholesterol (a vital
substance) as well as digest it from consumed foods, why do you seem to
think a 90% reduction in a minor artificially-processed consumable is a
good thing?

Perhaps T r o l l is also unaware that the body needs cholesterol, and if it
doesn't have enough in the diet, then it makes its own.

So it doesn't *need* it externally then?

And didn't I say there was *no* cholesterol in plant based milks did I?

What you did say was "...[non-milks] contain 90% less cholesterol etc'.

How much do you get from other sources?

Time for a cholesterol lesson?

Body cholesterol is 80% body-manufactured and 20% ingested.

Consuming a food with added plant sterols blocks the ingested
cholesterol but not the body-manufactured cholesterol. That's why they
are advertised as 'reducing cholesterol by up to 20%'.

Once again you are desperately clawing for *any* reason to try to
argue with me to defend your continuing justification of the
unnecessary suffering and death of innocent, sentient creatures.

Once again you are desperately clawing for *any* reason to try to argue
with me to defend your continuing justification of your
wildly-exaggerated claims.

It's the same as the argument against veganism based on protein or
B12, it's all bollox for anyone taking care of what they eat (which
should be everyone).

Is it?

--
Spike