egg yolks versus milk
-
- Posts: 293
- https://cutt.ly/meble-kuchenne-wroclaw
- Joined: Mon 18 Jan 2010 14:28
egg yolks versus milk
Milk is not meant for human consumption as it contains growth hormones for the baby cow. Doesn't the egg yolks serve a similar purpose, such that the chick will be able to develop into a chicken. Hence, doesn't egg yolks contain specific growth hormones that is meant for just the chick? Hence, my question is, why is it that we can eat egg yolks but not milk? I mean, milk is for the baby cows, hence egg yolks should be meant for just the chicks, no?
Re: egg yolks versus milk
Actually, fertilized egg yolks will eventually turn into chicks.Kookaburra wrote:egg yolks should be meant for just the chicks, no?
A fertilized egg yolk is a chick embryo.
Animals eat animals, including young animals, and their eggs.
-
- Posts: 293
- Joined: Mon 18 Jan 2010 14:28
I think I am not expressing myself clear enough. Well, what I am saying is that, I recall reading from this forum that, Mother's milk is meant for sucklings. It contains all kind of growth factors and hormones to stimulate optimum growth in these sucklings.
Now, the same can be said for the egg yolks. Yes, fertilized egg yolks will eventually turn into chicks. But how does it happen? Well, from the egg yolks which provide the necessary 'tools'. So, in one sense, the egg yolks are meant for the chicks.
Having said all that, I have a few questions.
1) Why don't egg yolks contain any growth hormones? Why only Milk? After all, they serve the same purpose. (to develop the babies)
2) Is it because they are two different species? (Mammals(milk) vs Birds(eggs))
3) Even so, I don't understand why egg yolks don't contain any growth hormones. I mean, the reason why we don't consume milk is because they contain specific growth hormones that will have disastrous effects on us if we drink it. Hence, if the birds want to make sure no animals will be able to steal their eggs, why don't their eggs contain specific growth hormones that will deter the animals, something that works like a toxin/enzymeinhibitor? Then, they will be able to ensure the survival of their species, so they will not become extinct. But, the egg yolks taste so good! Its like the birds are telling the animals to go steal the eggs, since they taste so good. Some raw plants taste bad and cause digestive problems. If the plants can do it, why not the egg yolks from the birds? That is what I have been trying to ask the whole time.
If the egg yolks were to contain specific growth hormones, it would not even be allowed on the strict sample diet, am I right in saying that?
Mother Nature is funny, in this sense.
Now, the same can be said for the egg yolks. Yes, fertilized egg yolks will eventually turn into chicks. But how does it happen? Well, from the egg yolks which provide the necessary 'tools'. So, in one sense, the egg yolks are meant for the chicks.
Having said all that, I have a few questions.
1) Why don't egg yolks contain any growth hormones? Why only Milk? After all, they serve the same purpose. (to develop the babies)
2) Is it because they are two different species? (Mammals(milk) vs Birds(eggs))
3) Even so, I don't understand why egg yolks don't contain any growth hormones. I mean, the reason why we don't consume milk is because they contain specific growth hormones that will have disastrous effects on us if we drink it. Hence, if the birds want to make sure no animals will be able to steal their eggs, why don't their eggs contain specific growth hormones that will deter the animals, something that works like a toxin/enzymeinhibitor? Then, they will be able to ensure the survival of their species, so they will not become extinct. But, the egg yolks taste so good! Its like the birds are telling the animals to go steal the eggs, since they taste so good. Some raw plants taste bad and cause digestive problems. If the plants can do it, why not the egg yolks from the birds? That is what I have been trying to ask the whole time.
If the egg yolks were to contain specific growth hormones, it would not even be allowed on the strict sample diet, am I right in saying that?
Mother Nature is funny, in this sense.
They also ARE the yolks.Kookaburra wrote:Yes, fertilized egg yolks will eventually turn into chicks. But how does it happen? Well, from the egg yolks which provide the necessary 'tools'. So, in one sense, the egg yolks are meant for the chicks.
thats the difference between milk and egg yolks.
Milk is 100% for consumption.
An embryo is a living organism, so of course it contains all kinds of hormones,1) Why don't egg yolks contain any growth hormones? Why only Milk? After all, they serve the same purpose. (to develop the babies)
including growth hormones, sex hormones, corticosteroids etc.
The difference with milk is that milk's sole purpose is to facilitate growth.
The purpose of the egg (incl. yolk) is to facilitate growth of the fertilized egg yolk.
No, every bird, reptile and mammal contains hormones.2) Is it because they are two different species? (Mammals(milk) vs Birds(eggs))
May have these effects.3) ... the reason why we don't consume milk is because they contain specific growth hormones that will have disastrous effects on us if we drink it.
They also contain opioid peptides and a too high level of calcium.
They also contain other proteins and lactose that may cause allergic like reactions.
Egg white may be considered as the 'womb of the egg'.why don't their eggs contain specific growth hormones that will deter the animals, something that works like a toxin/enzymeinhibitor?
It contains ovomucoid and avidine, which are both anti nutrients.
Every specie has its own tactics.Some raw plants taste bad and cause digestive problems. If the plants can do it, why not the egg yolks from the birds?
Stuffing the egg yolk with anti nutrients may hinder development.
Birds generally try to protect and hide their eggs.
No, every animal contains (low) levels of hormones, to facilitate functioning.If the egg yolks were to contain specific growth hormones, it would not even be allowed on the strict sample diet, am I right in saying that?
Embryos contain both growth hormones as well as other hormones.
Milk is specifically designed to only facilitate rapid growth.
Maybe you can compare it to the difference between eating the meat of a calf that was only fed normal food,
and the meat of a calf that was also injected with growth hormones.
-
- Posts: 293
- Joined: Mon 18 Jan 2010 14:28
First of all, thank you for answering my questions! I understand better now. On hindsight, I think they are really stupid questions.
I have one last question though.
Does milk contain any anti nutrients?
I have one last question though.
Stuffing the egg yolk with anti nutrients may hinder development.
Does an egg yolk contain any opioid peptides?They also contain opioid peptides and a too high level of calcium.
They also contain other proteins and lactose that may cause allergic like reactions.
Does milk contain any anti nutrients?
I dont agree.Kookaburra wrote:On hindsight, I think they are really stupid questions.
Its good thinking, as fertilized egg yolks are 'growth food' and embryo in one.
Ehrr, no: 2.I have one last question though.
(see below)
1) no, because nobody needs to get stimulated to eat it (on the contrary)Does an egg yolk contain any opioid peptides?
Does milk contain any anti nutrients?
2) im sure there is a little, as even maternal blood will contain some,
and therefore also the milk.
-
- Posts: 293
- Joined: Mon 18 Jan 2010 14:28
Hmm, doesn't the chick embryo need to get stimulated to eat it? Why does the baby cow need to get stimulated to eat(since milk contains opioid peptides) but the chick does not(since you said egg yolks don't contain opioid peptides)?1) no, because nobody needs to get stimulated to eat it (on the contrary)
Why doesn't egg yolk, like milk, contain other proteins and lactose that may cause allergic like reactions in humans? If it does, it may deter us from eating the yolk, which ensures the survival of the yolk.
Why is it stuffing the yolk with anti nutrients may hinder development, but not in the case of milk since like you said, they contain a little anti nutrients, but yet the baby cows are able to develop. There is no hindering.im sure there is a little, as even maternal blood will contain some,Does milk contain any anti nutrients?Stuffing the egg yolk with anti nutrients may hinder development.
and therefore also the milk.
No, embryos cannot chose to eat.Kookaburra wrote:Hmm, doesn't the chick embryo need to get stimulated to eat it?
They are fed automatically.
The baby cow is running free, and there are so many distractions everywhere.Why does the baby cow need to get stimulated to eat ...
but the chick does not...
The chick embryo cannot go anywhere, and cannot 'forget to eat'.
The lactose etc are not designed to deter humans from drinking cow's milk.Why doesn't egg yolk, like milk, contain other proteins and lactose that may cause allergic like reactions in humans? If it does, it may deter us from eating the yolk, which ensures the survival of the yolk..
Humans are not the primary natural enemy for cows nor chickens.
Lactose is not an anti nutrient, but lots of people are allergic to it.in the case of milk since like you said, they contain a little anti nutrients, but yet the baby cows are able to develop. There is no hindering.
Milk proteins are anti nutrients in the broader sense of the word,
but they are not designed to deter people (nor other species).
As i said:
Humans are not the primary natural enemy of cows....
We have never been a threat to their survival.
-
- Posts: 293
- Joined: Mon 18 Jan 2010 14:28
Ahh thanks for enlightening me. On a separate note, I read that you are a waiter in a restaurant. Well, don't you feel guilty serving all those cooked food to the guests? It's a little contradicting isn't it? Isn't it going against all your principles? In other words, you co-found the diet, emphasize on its importance of eliminating as much cooked foods as possible, and yet you are serving cooked food to the guests.
ha ha yes!
No, i dont feel guilty.
Everybody makes his own choices.
Most people dismiss this diet because they dont want to believe something that requires them to make a radical change.
And even when people are so open minded that they actually believe some of what we say,
they hardly ever want to give up their cooked foods.
Its very uncommon that people are willing to do such a radical diet as this.
And I fully respect the choice of people to eat cooked foods.
If thats what they want, thats what they get.
If they want to believe that they are doing the right / most pleasant thing,
who am i to try to convert them?
Whatever their choice, i respect it.
No, i dont feel guilty.
Everybody makes his own choices.
Most people dismiss this diet because they dont want to believe something that requires them to make a radical change.
And even when people are so open minded that they actually believe some of what we say,
they hardly ever want to give up their cooked foods.
Its very uncommon that people are willing to do such a radical diet as this.
And I fully respect the choice of people to eat cooked foods.
If thats what they want, thats what they get.
If they want to believe that they are doing the right / most pleasant thing,
who am i to try to convert them?
Whatever their choice, i respect it.
-
- Posts: 293
- Joined: Mon 18 Jan 2010 14:28
RRM, I can't believe you are a waiter, to be honest! I thought you are a lawyer, doctor or some other high class occupation. It takes intelligence(I can't think of a suitable word) to come up with this diet and also the co-relation between osteoblasts and osteoporosis. So I was shocked when I learnt that you are a waiter! Do you have a degree/bachelor? If you do not, I am even more amazed! And that is a compliment!
Don't forget the addiction...one's mind can make someone dismiss something which goes against one's addiction.
A degree does not guarantee intelligence, it only says something about the educational path someone has followed. More often than not it's more of a restrictive factor, as it teaches one specific way of thinking.
A degree does not guarantee intelligence, it only says something about the educational path someone has followed. More often than not it's more of a restrictive factor, as it teaches one specific way of thinking.
Re: egg yolks versus milk
I have to say in a way I regret the money and time I spent getting my degree; the only thing I've gotten out of it is a piece of paper. I'm curious though, what sparked your interest in diet/science? I'd like to know what got you smart RRM.
Re: egg yolks versus milk
Being Dutch?Mr. PC wrote:I'd like to know what got you smart RRM.