Soy & Milk

[Guest guest]

> Both of the other adults in my household were made

>sick by soy, but I don't know if any of us would have

>figured it out I hadn't found NT.

I am quite confused about two things here.

http://www.nexusmagazine.com/soydangers.html

I have seen other pages about the danger associated with unfermented

or otherwise traditionally handled soy. One reference even went to the

japanese symbol for the seed and in it found a warning that it

couldn't be eaten unless it was made into soy sauce, tofu or one

other thing. Sorry I have lost that page so the recollections are

fuzzy. In the on going discussion here about diabetes cause & effect,

soy, without specifying what form, has been mentioned in a favorable

light., yet my on limited experience shows it to not be so wonderful.

A friend, a vegan, eats it in a variety of ways and is one of the

sickest people I know. Thinks he is allergic to protein?!?!?! Soy is a

great industrial oil, as a renewable resource, it can run diesel

engines, makes a great solvent and is used in printers ink. is the

leftovers after squeezing the oil out being processed as feed for

either us or our live stock, and is it safe, like for instance in the

'burger substitute' department at the supermarket?

Second question

http://www.panix.com/~nomilk/

There is a lot of information out there about the negative effects of

milk. I knew at 95 year old Swede who flatly said that milk was for

babes and claimed to not have had any since a babe himself. He had no

calcium deficiency disease, died with all his teeth, but did eat a

diet very much like the traditional Swedish. Now, obviously a lot of

the negatives about milk could be brought around by pasteurization,

but the simplistic " milk is for babies " is hard to logically refute. A

gymnast I knew, who had vegetarian leanings, but was not yet in that

fold, told me that the calcium in milk is not easily assimilated and

said her observations was that american gymnast children had more

problems with broken bones than children in Europe because they got

and assimilated their calcium in leafy vegetables and they drank a lot

less milk.

So, what is the scoop on these two item. I am truly interested, not

try to stir up trouble

Thanks

Mike

[Guest guest]

>

> Second question

>

> http://www.panix.com/~nomilk/

>

> There is a lot of information out there about the negative effects

of

> milk. I knew at 95 year old Swede who flatly said that milk was for

> babes and claimed to not have had any since a babe himself. He had

no

> calcium deficiency disease, died with all his teeth, but did eat a

> diet very much like the traditional Swedish. Now, obviously a lot of

> the negatives about milk could be brought around by pasteurization,

> but the simplistic " milk is for babies " is hard to logically

refute.

Why? What are carrots for? What is meat for? They aren't food for

anything! Instead we harvest/slaughter them and eat them - not

exactly what the plant/animal wanted. If food has to be made " for "

us, then we'd all be fruitarians! Fruit is the only food whose

purpose is made to be eaten.

A

> gymnast I knew, who had vegetarian leanings, but was not yet in that

> fold, told me that the calcium in milk is not easily assimilated and

> said her observations was that american gymnast children had more

> problems with broken bones than children in Europe because they got

> and assimilated their calcium in leafy vegetables and they drank a

lot

> less milk.

The calcium in milk is slighlty less bioavailable than the calcium in

leafy green vegetables. But there is no way you'll get 1200mg or so

of calcium a day eating leafy green veggies. Its diary, bone broths,

high cartilage animal products like tendon and chicken feet (asian

cuisine delicacies), or bust. I'd also be willing to bet that

european girls drink more milk and less soda than american girls.

You may find realmilk.com interesting - just ignore the quote about

calves fed pastuerized milk dying before maturity!

[Guest guest]

--- meuritt@... wrote:

>In the on going discussion here about

> diabetes cause & effect,

> soy, without specifying what form, has been

> mentioned in a favorable

> light., yet my on limited experience shows it to not

> be so wonderful.

I think most people here would agree that soy is very

un-wonderful, and that properly-prepared soy in

moderation is okay (i.e. some traditionally fermented

soy sauce or miso) but by no means should it be a

staple of the diet. My body certainly doesn't like

non-fermented soy very much. A bit of tofu I can

tolerate, but things like roasted soy nuts or those

fake meat products make me get cramp-like pains in my

stomach almost immediately.

> Soy is a

> great industrial oil, as a renewable resource, it

> can run diesel

> engines, makes a great solvent and is used in

> printers ink.

I think that's where it should stay - industrial

applications, not a pervasive faux food ingredient.

>is the

> leftovers after squeezing the oil out being

> processed as feed for

> either us or our live stock, and is it safe, like

> for instance in the

> 'burger substitute' department at the supermarket?

Yes, the leftovers from the oil processing is what

they turn into " soy protein isolate " , and I would say

it definitely is not safe. It's no better for most

animals than it is for humans. I believe it's been

promoted as healthy by the food processing industry

because it gives them a way to sell what was

previously a useless waste product. It's very easy to

pay for studies that give results you want when you're

one of the most powerful businesses in the country.

> There is a lot of information out there about the

> negative effects of

> milk.

Milk may not be a suitable food for every person, for

instance those whose ancestors for thousands of years

consumed no dairy, and the stuff sold as milk in the

grocery store I don't think is good for anyone, but

real milk is a different story. A lot of the

anti-milk stuff I've read applies only to the

confinement-dairy, factory-produced stuff, and I think

a lot of it also boils down to opinion and propaganda,

not fact. As a typical example, I read a quote from

the notmilk man that casein is bad for us because it's

a " tenacious glue " - so what??? All kinds of inedible

things can be made from isolated soy components, and

yet he promotes soy milk as healthful.

> He had no

> calcium deficiency disease, died with all his teeth,

> but did eat a

> diet very much like the traditional Swedish.

I thought a traditional Swedish diet included a fair

amount of preserved milk products such as cheese, as

well as other calcium-containing foods such as greens

and whole fish (including the bones).

Aubin

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

> In the on going discussion here about diabetes cause & effect,

> soy, without specifying what form, has been mentioned in a favorable

> light., yet my on limited experience shows it to not be so

wonderful.

I should clarify that point, since I didn't do a good job the first

time around. If high glycemic foods cause diabetes, then soy should

prevent it - a very good thing! But since high glycemic foods don't

cause diabetes, soy doesn't even have that going for it. Its just a

thoroughly unhealthy, hard to digest, thyroid ruining, mineral

deficiency creating non-food. The only exception is small quanitities

consumed in heavily fermented forms like tempeh and miso.

But if high glycemic foods did cause diabetes, it would instead be a

hard to digest, thyroid ruining, mineral deficiency creating,

diabetes preventing semi-food.

[Guest guest]

-

>I should clarify that point, since I didn't do a good job the first

>time around. If high glycemic foods cause diabetes, then soy should

>prevent it - a very good thing!

That's sort of like saying that since a sufficient quantity of arsenic

prevents diabetes (by killing you!) that it's a very good thing.

-

[Guest guest]

> -

>

> >I should clarify that point, since I didn't do a good job the first

> >time around. If high glycemic foods cause diabetes, then soy should

> >prevent it - a very good thing!

>

> That's sort of like saying that since a sufficient quantity of

arsenic

> prevents diabetes (by killing you!) that it's a very good thing.

Then that argues against your point. I think soy has no redeeming

value. For you soy has many, many negatives and one positive: its low

glycemic.

[Guest guest]

-

>For you soy has many, many negatives and one positive: its low

>glycemic.

That's a bogus argument. Non-foods generally will not have a high glycemic

index. I imagine you could eat ground up rocks, or gravel, or cement, or

tar, without any direct effect on your blood sugar. Nonetheless, you won't

find anyone advocating eating tar because it's low on the glycemic

index. (I suppose there may be people who do advocate soy, but they're

doubtless the people who stare the evidence in the face but somehow still

need to make it fit the low-fat low-meat doctrine.)

-

[Guest guest]

> -

>

> >For you soy has many, many negatives and one positive: its low

> >glycemic.

>

> That's a bogus argument. Non-foods generally will not have a high

glycemic

> index. I imagine you could eat ground up rocks, or gravel, or

cement, or

> tar, without any direct effect on your blood sugar.

No that is *exactly* the argument that people who support the merits

of the glycemic index are making. The lowest glycemic index foods are

the hardest to digest, and I broke this down in detail in my first

post the 'glycemic index myth' thread. Eating rocks merely shows how

absurd the advice to eat low on the glycemic index is.

WAP found just the opposite: healthy primitives went to great lengths

to render hard to digest foods digestible. Doing so raises the

glyecemic index - which is a good thing! High glycemic carbs are good

for you. Insulin, like cholesterol, is good for you.

Low-carbers and low-fatters have more in common than they think. They

both want the entire population to eat a restrictive diet that flies

in the face of all common sense, as well as what WAP found about

health.

[Guest guest]

-

>No that is *exactly* the argument that people who support the merits

>of the glycemic index are making. The lowest glycemic index foods are

>the hardest to digest, and I broke this down in detail in my first

>post the 'glycemic index myth' thread. Eating rocks merely shows how

>absurd the advice to eat low on the glycemic index is.

>

>WAP found just the opposite: healthy primitives went to great lengths

>to render hard to digest foods digestible. Doing so raises the

>glyecemic index - which is a good thing! High glycemic carbs are good

>for you. Insulin, like cholesterol, is good for you.

Once again you're demonstrating that you're not interested in discussing

anything with _me_, just in beating up on a straw man.

By the way, the mirror image to your straw man argument is that if foods

get healthier the higher up the glycemic index you go, then pure maltose is

the best food for mankind.

Obviously, that's nonsense.

(And BTW, " insulin is good for you " is neither true nor false. Like

" cholesterol is good for you " or even " fat is good for you " , it must be

qualified by context and quantity. Surely even you wouldn't argue that an

excess of insulin is just fine -- or do you think there's no such thing as

an excess of insulin? Similarly, one could conceivably consume too much

cholesterol -- just not if one is consuming it only as a component of

healthy animal foods.)

Furthermore, there's an unaddressed flaw in your endothelium theory: you

say sugar damages the endothelium but high blood sugar isn't harmful. (If

you're going to keep up the straw man crap, don't bother replying.)

>Low-carbers and low-fatters have more in common than they think. They

>both want the entire population to eat a restrictive diet that flies

>in the face of all common sense, as well as what WAP found about

>health.

Another false statement, though it's likely of course that SOME low-carbers

want everyone to eat low-carb, since you can find purists and extremists in

every walk of life. (Though this depends in part on what you consider

" low " when it comes to carbs -- many people would consider anything under

70% to be " low-carbing " , but obviously that's ridiculous.) MOST

low-carbers consider low-carb diets to be appropriate for people suffering

diseases and disorders that can be ably remedied by a low-carb diet, such

as diabetes and overweight. If you were actually familiar with low-carb

movements and their leaders (such as Atkins) I'd assume you'd never have

made such an absurdly bogus statement.

On a related note, Elaine Gottschall (not a low-carber) who demonstrates at

great technical length why most starchy foods such as potatoes and grains

are extremely bad for you and not part of a healthy diet, is probably _too_

permissive of sugars and carbs which are (or can be) part of a healthy

diet, such as honey and almonds.

-

[Guest guest]

> -

>

> >No that is *exactly* the argument that people who support the

merits

> >of the glycemic index are making. The lowest glycemic index foods

are

> >the hardest to digest, and I broke this down in detail in my first

> >post the 'glycemic index myth' thread. Eating rocks merely shows

how

> >absurd the advice to eat low on the glycemic index is.

> >

> >WAP found just the opposite: healthy primitives went to great

lengths

> >to render hard to digest foods digestible. Doing so raises the

> >glyecemic index - which is a good thing! High glycemic carbs are

good

> >for you. Insulin, like cholesterol, is good for you.

>

> Once again you're demonstrating that you're not interested in

discussing

> anything with _me_, just in beating up on a straw man.

The beauty of science is producing a testable hypothesis. Once you

create a theory to explain certain data, then it will have other

implications. The implication of the GI theory is that high glycemic

carbs like potatoes and carrots are unhealthy because they produce

insulin at toxic levels. I think that shows that the theory is

flawed. But everytime I examine the implications of the GI theory,

you accuse me of arguing against straw men. If you aren't prepared to

have your theory used prospectively, you shouldn't put it on the

table.

> By the way, the mirror image to your straw man argument is that if

foods

> get healthier the higher up the glycemic index you go, then pure

maltose is

> the best food for mankind.

>

> Obviously, that's nonsense.

When does WAP ever say that refined foods are healthy? Never. When my

theory disagrees with what he found, then I'll go back to the drawing

board and try to design a better theory that does account for all the

data points. That is the key differance between us. So far I haven't

found the endothelial dysfunction argument to be inconsistant with

his findings. By comparison the GI argument is massively inconsistent

with WAP's findings.

> (And BTW, " insulin is good for you " is neither true nor false.

Like

> " cholesterol is good for you " or even " fat is good for you " , it

must be

> qualified by context and quantity.

If the GI theory is correct, then high insulin causes diabetes. That

means insulin is toxic, just like the cholesterol scientists are

saying about cholesterol.

Surely even you wouldn't argue that an

> excess of insulin is just fine -- or do you think there's no such

thing as

> an excess of insulin?

No. You can't get too much insulin eating whole foods.

>Similarly, one could conceivably consume too much

> cholesterol -- just not if one is consuming it only as a component

of

> healthy animal foods.)

Interesting that you put that qualifier in for cholesterol, but you

don't put it in for insulin.

> Furthermore, there's an unaddressed flaw in your endothelium

theory: you

> say sugar damages the endothelium but high blood sugar isn't

harmful. (If

> you're going to keep up the straw man crap, don't bother replying.)

There's no flaw. The " displacing foods of modern commerce " cause

diabetes. But again, this underscores the differance between us: if

my theory doesn't fit the empirical evidence then I'll say it. I

won't say that foods that WAP considers to be healthy must actually

be bad for us or vice-versa.

I take WAP for the empirical evidence and try to derive a theory that

matches that evidence. If I can't, then its back to the drawing board

for me!

> >Low-carbers and low-fatters have more in common than they think.

They

> >both want the entire population to eat a restrictive diet that

flies

> >in the face of all common sense, as well as what WAP found about

> >health.

>

> Another false statement

If the GI theory is correct, then my statement is 100% true. If the

GI theory were correct, I'd avoid potatoes like vegans avoid meat.

MOST

> low-carbers consider low-carb diets to be appropriate for people

suffering

> diseases and disorders that can be ably remedied by a low-carb

diet, such

> as diabetes and overweight.

That's exactly what I've been saying along, because low GI foods can

accomplish for diabetics what there damaged insulin mechanisms cannot

do: regulate blood sugar. But if the GI theory is correct, we should

all eat low GI foods. Its nice to know that Dr. Atkins does not

attribute causality to the GI theory.

[Guest guest]

please, cut out the snideness and outright rudeness. i enjoy reading

both of y'alls posts, but not when it sinks to that level.

tia--

allene

[Guest guest]

-

>But everytime I examine the implications of the GI theory,

>you accuse me of arguing against straw men. If you aren't prepared to

>have your theory used prospectively, you shouldn't put it on the

>table.

Here we go again. Let's call the theory that the glycemic index is a

perfect predictor of diabetes and should be used as the single factor in

determining diet Theory Purple. You're arguing against Theory Purple,

yes? The problem is, Theory Purple is not my theory, and I haven't

espoused it. Not once. Not anywhere. If you think I did, show me where

-- or go find someone else who DOES espouse Theory Purple to argue with.

Furthermore, I'm not sure that ANYONE ANYWHERE is a hard-line believer in

Theory Purple. I could be wrong, but I'm tolerably well acquainted with at

least some of the leading low-carb people and their recommendations, and I

haven't come across such a hard-liner.

If setting up an argument (hard-line advocacy of Theory Purple) that your

debate opponent isn't espousing and then knocking that argument down isn't

the use of a standard straw man, then what is? That said, I'm not really

interested in arguing about that. I've only complained about straw men

because, like most people, I don't like having my arguments

mischaracterized, and because it's getting in the way of the ostensible

subject of discussion -- the healthiness or lack thereof of various carbs,

the cause(s) of diabetes, and related issues.

>By comparison the GI argument is massively inconsistent

>with WAP's findings.

You have yet to demonstrate this, actually, except in the strictest

possible sense that his observations are at odds with Theory Purple.

First, your assumption that traditional methods of preparation always raise

the glycemic index of a food is, I believe, faulty. I have no doubt that

it does so in some situations, but I don't think there's any reliable

information on when it does and when it doesn't. This is because you're

discounting the consumption of sugar by fermentative bacteria. For

example, the preparation of fermented dairy tends to consume some portion

of the lactose. One of the end products of this consumption is lactic acid

-- which doesn't, AFAIK, act like a sugar in the body. I ferment my

yoghurt for 24 hours, which I'm told leaves only about 1% of the lactose in

the final product. Some of the galactose from lactose consumption remains,

and some, AFAIK, is also consumed by the bacteria responsible for producing

the yoghurt. So in all likelihood, the GI of yoghurt thus prepared is

lower than the GI of the raw ingredients -- and, in fact, 24-hour yoghurt

is much more digestible than yoghurt fermented for more standard lengths of

time on the order of 6 hours. (I don't actually know how long people

traditionally fermented yoghurt, but the stuff you get in the store is

fermented for a minimum length of time in order to maximize production and

profit.)

Second, though I haven't read NAPD, my understanding is that the diet of

the Masai WAP observed was not very varied. In fact, unless my information

is inaccurate, I'd suspect it was problematically limited in scope, which

might account for the fact that other tribes which consumed more vegetable

matter were, perhaps, healthier. As a general rule, though, the peoples

who consumed more animal food were healthier, and the peoples who consumed

less were less healthy.

Third, you're assuming that the value of the glycemic index is an

all-or-nothing proposition -- IOW it's either 100% predictive or completely

useless. But that's ridiculous. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that a

person's vulnerability to foods high on the index depends on how deficient

he is in zinc -- the more deficient, the more vulnerable, the less

deficient, the less vulnerable. (This is, of course, a stunning

simplification, but zinc is involved in glucose sensitivity and metabolism,

so it's not actually a bad example.) The healthy people WAP observed who

ate higher on the index were eating whole foods balanced as best as

possible and grown on fertile, zinc-rich soil, so of course they fared

better than people eating modern devitalized foods high on the index. Such

a scenario would involve two factors -- the GI, and zinc. Reality is

likely to be much more complicated, of course, but complete understanding

doesn't usually come in one step.

>The implication of the GI theory is that high glycemic

>carbs like potatoes and carrots are unhealthy because they produce

>insulin at toxic levels.

Actually, there are several reasons carrots and potatoes are unhealthy,

though potatoes are far, far worse. Potatoes, besides prompting a

tremendous rise in blood sugar and prompting an equally enormous release of

insulin, feeds bad flora in the gut. What's your evidence that potatoes

are healthy?

>No. You can't get too much insulin eating whole foods.

Why do you assume this?

And more to the point, what do you call whole foods? You've defended

potatoes simply on the ground that they're a whole food, but soy is a whole

food too, so obviously there are other criteria involved. You don't think

it's possible to breed a food to the point that it's unhealthy, or to breed

a toxic food to the point that it's not immediately toxic but is still, in

the long term, unhealthy?

>Interesting that you put that qualifier in for cholesterol, but you

>don't put it in for insulin.

I don't think anyone's interested in consumption of insulin as a food

ingredient. It's possible to have hormonal imbalances, though -- for

example to be hypothyroid or hyperthyroid.

>because low GI foods can

>accomplish for diabetics what there damaged insulin mechanisms cannot

>do: regulate blood sugar.

You also seem to be ignoring another factor in diabetes and related

disorders -- namely, insulin resistance. How do you think insulin

resistance arises? And if your theory is correct, couldn't simple

supplementation prevent and even cure diabetes?

(BTW, IIRC you said you think you're somewhat hypoglycemic -- which means

you have a damaged insulin mechanism and can therefore benefit by some

degree of carb restriction.)

-

[Guest guest]

>>>>I ferment my

yoghurt for 24 hours, which I'm told leaves only about 1% of the lactose in

the final product. Some of the galactose from lactose consumption remains,

and some, AFAIK, is also consumed by the bacteria responsible for producing

the yoghurt.

***Hey there ,

Do you leave your yogurt in a warm 150 degree oven for 24 hours? Just

curious...I made yogurt for the first time the other day and followed the NT

recipe, which means I put it in the frige after it was in the oven for about

12 hours.

Do you think heating it to 180 denatures the proteins at all, or destroys

enough enzymes that raw milk might be a better option? I generally eat quite

a bit of yogurt (commercial), but now that I have a source of raw goat's

milk, I'm wondering if it wouldn't be healthier to drink the unheated milk

instead. Although I wouldn't get the bacterial benefits, I guess.

Suze Fisher

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

Suze-

>Do you leave your yogurt in a warm 150 degree oven for 24 hours? Just

>curious...I made yogurt for the first time the other day and followed the NT

>recipe, which means I put it in the frige after it was in the oven for about

>12 hours.

So far I've been using a Yogourmet, which heats the yoghurt to something

like 118 degrees by the end of the 24 hours... depending on the ambient

temperature. I expect as spring warms up and heads into summer the

Yogourmet will get unacceptably hot, so I'll probably get a dehydrator,

since that'll have a thermostat. (And since I can imagine other uses for a

dehydrator too. <g>) That way I'll be able to make the yoghurt at around

100-105 degrees, which shouldn't damage the milk and cream at all.

>Do you think heating it to 180 denatures the proteins at all, or destroys

>enough enzymes that raw milk might be a better option?

Definitely! I actually experimented with not heating the dairy back when I

was still using pasteurized (but grass-fed and not homogenized) dairy, and

as long as it was pretty fresh (I got it from a farm stand in the city, so

there was no middle man delaying things) it came out OK, but since

switching to raw grass-fed dairy I haven't heated the half and half (I use

half milk and half cream for my yoghurt) once. I definitely don't want to

destroy the virtues of that raw dairy!

>I'm wondering if it wouldn't be healthier to drink the unheated milk

>instead. Although I wouldn't get the bacterial benefits, I guess.

Well, you'd get some bacterial benefits since the milk would be raw, but

you could definitely experiment with fermenting your raw goat's milk into

kefir or yoghurt. Kefir is a room-temperature culture, so in one respect

it's even easier than yoghurt, but I've also found that it's fussier and

more variable than yoghurt. You have to keep an eye on it to make sure you

catch it when it's at the stage you like (not too bitter, for example). I

make both, though, and I like them both.

-

[Guest guest]

>>>>but since

switching to raw grass-fed dairy I haven't heated the half and half (I use

half milk and half cream for my yoghurt) once.

***Is the yogurt you make pretty creamy then, since you use 1/2 and 1/2? The

batch I made was raw cow's milk, and it was pretty runny, as I read it's

supposed to be. But I imagine goat's milk yogurt would be quite a bit

creamier since it's naturally homogenized.

>>> but

you could definitely experiment with fermenting your raw goat's milk into

kefir or yoghurt. Kefir is a room-temperature culture, so in one respect

it's even easier than yoghurt, but I've also found that it's fussier and

more variable than yoghurt. You have to keep an eye on it to make sure you

catch it when it's at the stage you like (not too bitter, for example). I

make both, though, and I like them both.

***That sounds like a good idea - I like kefir! Where do you get your

culture? Also, where do you ferment it? I see NT says to set it in a place

that's 65-76 degrees. I have fermented porridge in my oven with the heat

off, but the bulb on. However, I'm not sure exactly what the temp is in

there, but I suppose it's somewhere in the neighborhood. Is there a way to

tell if you've overheated or underheated kefir? Does it change the

consistency, smell, etc?

Suze Fisher

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

Suze-

>***Is the yogurt you make pretty creamy then, since you use 1/2 and 1/2?

It's varied. It depends on a lot of factors, and I haven't figured all of

them out yet. As a general rule it's pretty creamy, but a cream layer does

nonetheless form on top of the yoghurt -- I'm sure you've seen the same

thing in Brown Cow yoghurt and the like. If I goof and leave the yoghurt

in the Yogourmet for an extra 12 hours, the cream layer is a lot thicker

and the yoghurt a lot runnier. I also recently switched from Yogourmet's

yoghurt starter (which I believe is just Lyo-San rebranded) to Harry's from

Custom Probiotics. The Yogourmet starter included powdered milk and

sucrose, but Harry's has no fillers or additives or fillers, just pure

bacteria. (It also has an extra strain, L. Rhamnosus, which seems to be

behind the somewhat nasty taste of yoghurt made from Harry's

starter. However, I do seem to be getting used to it, and from what I

could find on the net, Rhamnosus appears to be highly beneficial. At any

rate, I've just taken to adding a little more berry sauce to my yoghurt and

it's working out OK so far. (My " berry sauce " is just the berry syrup

recipe from NT made without any added sugar, and with the skins and seeds

strained out after fermentation. (Without the sugar the pulp is just too

bitter.)) I also crumble some plain saccharine pellets into the bowl as a

sweetener.)

(I've also taken to stirring the yoghurt a bit in the container every time

I take some, because otherwise by the time I get to the bottom I basically

have a mixture of lowfat yoghurt and whey, which I don't like. <g>)

>But I imagine goat's milk yogurt would be quite a bit

>creamier since it's naturally homogenized.

Perhaps, but perhaps the heat and time involved in culturing would separate

the fat somewhat. I'll be interested to hear how it works out if you try it!

>Where do you get your

>culture?

I got my grains from GEM Cultures, which is listed in NT. It's been pretty

easy to just transfer them from batch to batch -- and they do multiply!

(When I ordered the kefir grains I also got fil mjolk, which I like, villi,

which I didn't, and kombucha -- oh, and a thermometer too. A thermometer's

a pretty useful tool for all this fermenting!)

>Also, where do you ferment it? I see NT says to set it in a place

>that's 65-76 degrees.

So far I've been fermenting it in my kitchen cabinet over the fridge.

That's where I make the berry sauce and some other things too, like fil

mjolk, but I found it wasn't warm enough for kombucha. It took me roughly

forever, but I finally found a product that I think will prove perfect for

making kombucha -- a thin, flat, flexible plastic seedling heating mat with

a thermostat and temperature probe for precise control. I set up the whole

thing inside the styrofoam cooler my order of buffalo suet came in, and I

attached the temperature probe to the jar with a rubber band. <g>

(If anyone's interested, I got a Hydrofarm Propagation Mat and a HydroFarm

Propagation Mat Thermostat, and so far I HIGHLY recommend them. I bought

them at http://greenfire.net/hot/R431.html and they handled my order

promptly and well, but I'd imagine you could find the same things elsewhere.)

Previously, my kombucha was coming out undrinkable -- extremely sweet and

extremely vinegary, like harsh vinegar with a lot of sugar added. The

heating pad and thermostat arrived about 2/3 of the way through this batch

and this time it came out very differently, not nearly as sweet, but also

not nearly as vinegary. I just started a new batch, and I'm hoping it

works out even better this time since it'll be temperature-controlled from

the very beginning. I drank a little of this batch fresh out of the

incubator, but I bottled most of it and put it in the fridge, since

apparently you get the best results -- and carbonation -- by sealing it and

refrigerating it for the better part of a week after culturing it.

>However, I'm not sure exactly what the temp is in

>there, but I suppose it's somewhere in the neighborhood. Is there a way to

>tell if you've overheated or underheated kefir? Does it change the

>consistency, smell, etc?

I don't offhand remember what the kill temperature is for kefir, but if you

overheat it, it dies. <g> I seriously doubt you're in any danger of doing

that, though. On the other hand, it's hard to make it cold enough to cause

a problem. Some people even culture their kefir in the fridge. The main

difference is that it takes a lot longer that way, and I think the colder

temperatures favor the vinegar-forming acetobacter strains, so I personally

wouldn't want a kefir that was made in a low temperature. I find that if I

pour the kefir out as soon as I notice it starting to separate that I get

the flavor and consistency I like, but everyone's different. That's the

neat thing about kefir -- the grains are pretty tough, so you can mess

around until you figure out how you like it. (It's also the irritating

thing about kefir -- the flora in the grains can shift and change over

time, and it's sensitive to temperature and other conditions, so it varies,

unlike yoghurt, which can be made pretty much identically from batch to batch.)

-

[Guest guest]

Me:

>Where do you get your

>culture?

P:

I got my grains from GEM Cultures, which is listed in NT. It's been pretty

easy to just transfer them from batch to batch -- and they do multiply!

Me again:

Have you tried kefir made with other cultures for comparison? I've heard

that the quality of kefir grains varies widely. I've read for example, that

Volhard (author of " Holistic Guide for a Healthy Dog " ) has some

fabulous grains that she brought over from Europe. It just made me wonder

where I might be able to find really " good " grains, whatever that might be.

I imagine the GEM grains are fairly good if NT recommends them - I mean I

imagine they tried them out before recommending them. Or maybe I'm just

imagining things...Do you think they're pretty good from your experience?

Thanks for all the info on making kefir/yogurt - I'm saving your post for

future reference!

Suze Fisher

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

Suze-

>Have you tried kefir made with other cultures for comparison? I've heard

>that the quality of kefir grains varies widely. I've read for example, that

> Volhard (author of " Holistic Guide for a Healthy Dog " ) has some

>fabulous grains that she brought over from Europe.

No, I haven't tried to procure others to experiment with. Maybe when I

have more time. <g>

>Do you think they're pretty good from your experience?

Well, I like the kefir made from the GEM grains. I think they use lowfat

milk as their culturing medium, or maybe whole milk, whereas I make half

and half, but as I understand it, any grains you get will adjust over time

to the dairy you use.

-

[Guest guest]

,

You wrote:

(If anyone's interested, I got a Hydrofarm Propagation Mat and a HydroFarm

Propagation Mat Thermostat, and so far I HIGHLY recommend them. I bought

them at http://greenfire.net/hot/R431.html and they handled my order

promptly and well, but I'd imagine you could find the same things elsewhere.)

Are there any other uses for this other than for the Kombucha?

Sonja