From: ((Steven B. Harris)) Subject: Re: Calcium sources & primiti Date: 24 May 1995 Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative In <950524064657.36A013@news.nbnet.nb.ca> cigolott@nbnet.nb.ca (Tom Cigolotti) writes: >Doesn't make sense....Would there be any reason why something that contains >calcium in reasonably high quantities would at the same time cause a >deficiency ?? Yes, since the "availability" of the calcium to be retained depends on the protein content of the item. Proteins are metabolized to (among other things) acids, which drain calcium from you, via the kidneys (this sounds like some granola naturopathic stuff, but I swear it isn't). You can retain more calcium either by eating more calcium, eating less protein, or eating chemically basic substances like bicarbonate and citrate (an acid anion which is metabolized to bicarbonate). All three strategies have been proven clinically. My favorite is a combination: calcium citrate pills, which are about 1000 mg, and contain about 250 mg of calcium. One with each meal (when remembered) is a fine suppliment for women. What about milk? It has so much protein and phosphate that it's a fine line whether it does good or ill, calcium wise (for those adults without lactase deficiency, I happen to think that skim milk is an excellent food in other ways, however). There have been a few studies showing calcium balance good with milk, but to get real benefit you have to let milk play a major part of your daily protein needs, and eat otherwise fairly vegetarian. The positive studies are generally funded by the National Dairy Council <g>, and there are some negative ones (no benefit). No, I don't think that milk ever actually drains calcium from anyone at a fantastic rate, either. And no, yogurt isn't any better or worse-- just more acceptable to the granola crowd. Steve Harris, M.D. From: sbharris@ix.netcom.com(Steven B. Harris) Subject: Re: Ca+ Absorbance Date: 09 Dec 1996 Newsgroups: alt.health,misc.health.alternative,sci.med.nutrition In <cjfuller-0812961036580001@c-fuller1.uncg.edu> cjfuller@mindspring.com (C.J. Fuller) writes: >In article <58d169$2k8@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>, sbharris@ix.netcom.com >(Steven B. Harris) wrote: >> >> The calcium ion is Ca++ or Ca2+. Milk is not as good a source of >>calcium as it would be if it had no protein, or if the calcium salt were >>one that added a base load to the body, such as carbonate, lactate, or >>citrate. However, milk is a reasonable source of calcium, and there are >>a number of studies showing a better calcium balance they don't lose >>more than they take in each day) in older people given milk. Again, it's >>not as good as pills, but it's better than water. And it's a hell of a >>lot better than soft drinks, which contain an acid phosphate load and NO >>calcium. >> >> Steve Harris, M.D. > >Steve-What gave you the idea that calcium absorption from milk was poorer >than from supplements? Check out the chapter in Shils et al. (1994) by >Lindsay Allen and Richard Wood, two active calcium investigators. They >state that, with the exception of calcium citrate-malate, there is no >advantage to calcium supplements over milk. And the only way these days >you can get calcium citrate-malate is from fortified juices, not from >pills. > >Cindy Fuller, Ph.D., R.D. > >-- >C.J. Fuller ><mailto:cjfuller@erickson.uncg.edu> Answer: Did I say anything about absorption? You misunderstand me. The problem with milk is not calcium absorption, but calcium retention. What good does it do to absorb calcium if you just lose it in your urine? The best source of calcium is one that lets you keep it <g>. Presenting the human body with acid loads from protein (sulfuric acid from methionine metabolism, for instance) causes it to lose calcium, which is used in the urine as a buffer. Dairy products have lots of protein. If you want to retain more of the calcium you eat, you need to eat less protein, and/or some base (unless you're a cat and can neutralize your urine with ammonia, and tolerate more acid in the urine anyway than humans). Calcium salts with a basic anion (carbonate, bicarbonate), or organic calcium salts with an anion which is metabolized to bicarbonate (lactate, citrate) allow humans to retain more calcium. Calcium phosphate is not as good. Even taking *potassium* citrate improves calcium balance, and there are several studies of osteoporosis using this alone. The value of many basic calcium supplements is as much in that part that isn't calcium, as the part that is. Bottom line: take your calcium with a base and no protein to maximize bang for buck.* Milk misses on both counts. This is not saying that milk won't give you calcium, and isn't good for you in this regard. It *is* saying that as far as osteoporosis is concerned, the calcium in milk counts a lot less, mg for mg, than the calcium in Oscal or CitriCal. Steve Harris, M.D. * You have to be moderate in this, as too much calcium (more than 2 grams/d) taken with base can raise levels so much as to cause calcium overload (milk alkali syndrome). But you'd expect more overload problems with a more effective route of supplementation. From: sbharris@ix.netcom.com(Steven B. Harris) Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition Subject: Re: Cows'Milk is Degrading to Human Health Date: 7 Jul 1998 07:45:04 GMT In <26390-35A15F1B-191@newsd-103.iap.bryant.webtv.net> jgav@webtv.net (John Gavin) writes: >There is not a member of the animal kingdom which uses milk as food >after it has been weaned. It remains for man to develop such >stupidity and to over-look the use of milk as the cause of so many of >his ailments. > >Nature placed the necessary ingredients in the milk of each type of >animal, that were best suited for the growth of its young. > >Dr. Norman W. Walker (who passed away at age 109) > -------------------------------------------------------- And here's another quote: "Those who have experimented with feeding laboratory animals milk and milk products know that its value as a well-rounded food is outstanding and difficult to match with any other common food. Almost any animal consuming a diet free from milk or milk products will have its condition improved if some milk is added to its diet. This effect is brought about not only by the minerals and vitamins, which are extraordinarily well balanced, but also by the excellent balance of the amino acids in milk proteins. Proteins with nutritionally excellent amino acid makeup are hard to come by. Any extreme position with respect to milk-- either that it should be used universally or that its use should be restricted to small children-- is a faddist notion which cannot be defended scientifically." Roger J. Williams, Ph.D. _Nutrition Against Disease_ Note: Dr. Williams only made it to age 94, but he discovered and named more vitamins than Norman Walker, and knew a good deal more about nutrition. From a personal point of view I can't resist adding that my own considerably more humble research with mice and aging tends to confirm Williams' view. Casein as a single protein source is compatable with extremely long life spans in adult rodents-- some of the best on record. In fact, casein was used for the record life spans in mice, obtained at the Jackson laboratories. I only wish we'd tried whey. Soy didn't do as well. Steve Harris, M.D. From: "Steve Harris" <sbharris@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition Subject: Re: Why Is There More Protein in NonFat Milk Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2002 10:21:26 -0600 Message-ID: <a8prml$oj0$1@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net> "Paul Chefurka" <paul@chefurka.com> wrote in message news:n7i0bus5ce0a1ihschbe2age84fevit4k8@4ax.com... > On Sat, 06 Apr 2002 22:54:43 -0500, Mike Roose > <somewhatusefultrainer@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >On 07 Apr 2002 02:54:10 GMT, withbacon@aol.companion (Eggs Pancakes > >Syrup Toast Coffee) wrote: > > > >>>...as opposed to whole (1g per 8 oz)?? > >> > >>Think about it. Milk=Water+Carbs+Protein+Fat. > >> > >>What happens to the % of protein when you remove the fat? > > > >It's not the %, its the acutely gram count, from 8 to 9 grams per 8 > >oz. > > If a gram of fat is removed, a gram of something else takes its place. But the prime reason is that many non-fat and low-fat milks these days are frankly fortified with protein. This was done because of customer complaint that the stuff was thin and tended to taste "like water." So the USDA allowed it, and you can generally see that it's done on the label ("milk solids added."). Only whole milk is (AFAIK) never protein fortified. SBH -- I welcome Email from strangers with the minimal cleverness to fix my address (it's an open-book test). I strongly recommend recipients of unsolicited bulk Email ad spam use "http://combat.uxn.com" to get the true corporate name of the last ISP address on the viewsource header, then forward message & headers to "abuse@[offendingISP]." From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition Subject: Re: Another Phony Dairy Industry Study Date: 26 May 2005 21:14:09 -0700 Message-ID: <1117167249.648773.211420@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> >>Dare I say that you are biased. I doubt that more people will start drinking milk or more people will stop drinking milk because of Bozos like you [Cohen]. << COMMENT: Indeed. If you go to medline, you find that not only did Elwood do his own epidemiological study of dairy consumption, but also a meta-analysis of 10 other pretty good studies. Result--- a small but statistically significant suggestion that there is something in milk which prevents stroke. An example of this kind of finding is from the Honolulu Heart Program, which found the protective effect of milk (non milk drinkings had twice the stroke risk), but not other calcium foods, suggesting that whatever is in milk which protects against stroke, if anything, it's NOT the calcium. We don't KNOW what it is. Geez, wouldn't it be politically incorrect if it turned out to be the dairy fat. Shades of Woody Allen and Sleeper. You know, when the French found that drinking a lot of red wine and eating French cheese didn't automatically make you drop over dead, nobody in particular accused them of being shills for the Bordeaux and Brie industries. Though there was at least as much justification for the suspicion. Rather, they went ahead and looked at a number of studies to see if the effects were replicable and robust, and it turned out that they were. So they scratched their heads. This is the beginning of knowledge, of wisdom. You admit that what the principle you thought was generally true, didn't predict a particular real result. So maybe your worldview needs to be more complex. Once upon a time, everybody knew for sure alcohol was bad for people. And certainly cheese. And milk, well--- forgetabout it. But reality just isn't that easy. Sorry. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2004 May;58(5):718-24. Milk drinking, ischaemic heart disease and ischaemic stroke II. Evidence from cohort studies. Elwood PC, Pickering JE, Hughes J, Fehily AM, Ness AR. Department of Epidemiology, Statistics and Public Health, University of Wales College of Medicine, Cardiff, UK. pelwood@doctors.org.uk OBJECTIVE: Milk consumption is considered a risk factor for vascular disease on the basis of relevant biological mechanisms and data from ecological studies. The aim was to identify published prospective studies of milk drinking and vascular disease, and conduct an overview. DESIGN: The literature was searched for cohort studies, in which an estimate of the consumption of milk, or the intake of calcium from dairy sources, has been related to incident vascular disease. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Ischaemic heart disease and ischaemic stroke. RESULTS: In total, 10 studies were identified. Their results show a high degree of consistency in the reported risk for heart disease and stroke, all but one study suggesting a relative risk of less than one in subjects with the highest intakes of milk. A pooled estimate of relative odds in these subjects, relative to the risk in subjects with the lowest consumption, is 0.87 (95% CI 0.74-1.03) for ischaemic heart disease and 0.83 (0.77-0.90) for ischaemic stroke. The odds ratio for any vascular event is 0.84 (0.78-0.90). CONCLUSIONS: Cohort studies provide no convincing evidence that milk is harmful. While there still could be residual confounding from unidentified factors, the studies, taken together, suggest that milk drinking may be associated with a small but worthwhile reduction in heart disease and stroke risk. SPONSORSHIP: The University of Wales College of Medicine and Bristol University. Current support is from the Food Standards Agency. Publication Types: Meta-Analysis Review Review, Tutorial PMID: 15116074 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] ========================================== Stroke. 1996 May;27(5):813-8. Effect of dietary calcium and milk consumption on risk of thromboembolic stroke in older middle-aged men. The Honolulu Heart Program. Abbott RD, Curb JD, Rodriguez BL, Sharp DS, Burchfiel CM, Yano K. Division of Biostatistics, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville 22908, USA. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Evidence suggests that dietary calcium is protective against hypertension. This report examines whether the effect has an influence on thromboembolic stroke. METHODS: Since 1965, the Honolulu Heart Program has followed a cohort of men in a study of cardiovascular disease. This report examines the effect of baseline dietary calcium and milk intake on stroke risk in 22 years of follow-up in 3150 older middle-aged men (55 to 68 years). RESULTS: Men who were nondrinkers of milk experienced stroke at twice the rate (P < .05) of men who consumed 16 oz/d or more (7.9 versus 3.7 per 100, respectively). While the rate of stroke decreased with increasing milk intake (P < .05), the decline in stroke risk with increased consumption was modest for those who consumed under 16 oz/d. Intake of dietary calcium was also associated with a reduced risk of stroke (P < .01), although its association was confounded with milk consumption. Calcium intake from nondairy sources was not related to stroke, suggesting that other constituents or covariates related to milk consumption may be important. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that an association between milk consumption and a reduced risk of stroke in older middle-aged men cannot be explained by intake of dietary calcium. Since milk is often part of a diverse pattern of dietary intake, it is difficult to determine whether milk consumption has a direct role in reducing the risk of stroke. Data suggest that consumption of milk in older middle age is not harmful, and when combined with a balanced diet, weight control, and physical activity, reductions in the risk of stroke may occur. PMID: 8623098 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition,alt.health,misc.health.alternative Subject: Re: Latest Dairy coverup Date: 5 Jun 2005 17:26:28 -0700 Message-ID: <1118017588.943364.7080@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> >>The modern cairy cow produces 10-20 times the milk that wild cattle and domestic beef breeds do.<< COMMENT I'd like to see your reference for that, please (Agricultural journal where it's measured, please). Since the average (not prize, but average) Holstein produces 17,000 lbs of milk a year, that would put milk production of the average beef cow at 1700 to 850 lbs of milk a year. That's not very much to produce a 400 lb weanling calf, which Black Angus beef cows do when they're allowed to breed free-range. So we'd like to see your figures. >>A calf has no off switch to tell it to stop nursing when it has ingested the right amount of milk. It will just keep sucking and soon will overload it's digestive system with too much milk to be properly digested. This sets up ideal conditions for the growth of pathogens. The toxins released by these bacteria damage the intestinal linings, reducing absorption of water and nutrients, and resulting in diarrhea, dehydration, and death. Because different bacteria or combinations of bacteria are involved this condition, called "scours" it is not really considered one disease, but a class of related diseases. << COMMENT: This is complete nonsense. Calves can be fed whole milk ad libitum, and they will do well, drinking up to 26% of their body weight in a day, for a young calf. That's around 26 lbs of milk for a 100 lb calf. There are many myths that too much milk produces diarrhea in calves and they're all wrong. Too *little* milk can produce sick calves with the scours, and mixing milk replacer at too high concentrations can produce diarrhea (not too suprisingly). But natural cow milk was made for calves (as the nutrition nuts like to point out) and calves do fine when given access to all they want. Here, argue with the experts if you like. http://www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/livestock/dairy/facts/headstart.htm From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition,alt.health,misc.health.alternative Subject: Re: Latest Dairy coverup Date: 5 Jun 2005 18:48:18 -0700 Message-ID: <1118022498.928694.204840@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> >I'd like to see your reference for that, please (Agricultural journal where it's measured, please). Since the average (not prize, but average) Holstein produces 17,000 lbs of milk a year, that would put milk production of the average beef cow at 1700 to 850 lbs of milk a year. That's not very much to produce a 400 lb weanling calf, which Black Angus beef cows do when they're allowed to breed free-range. So ?we'd like to see your figures <<. >>And I would like to see your references and figures. 17,000 lbs of milk per year computes to 3 gallon per milking. That would be half what a Holstein today should produce. << COMMENT: Your computer is off. 17,000 lbs is 2125 gallons is 5.8 gallons per day, not 3 gallons. But not every cow in a herd can be milked 365 days a year (it's more like 300 days). Here's a site that gives 21,167 lbs a year, if you like that better. The record cows run 3 times that, but not every herd consists entirely of record cows. >I'd like to see your reference for that, please (Agricultural journal where it's measured, please). Since the average (not prize, but average) Holstein produces 17,000 lbs of milk a year, that would put milk production of the average beef cow at 1700 to 850 lbs of milk a year. That's not very much to produce a 400 lb weanling calf, which Black Angus beef cows do when they're allowed to breed free-range.< >>1700 lb of milk per year computes to one quart per milking. Sorry, but you are in error again. << COMMENT: More like twice that. But in any case, Doofus, read the thread. The 1700 lb figure comes from my extrapolating down the Holstein figure, from the guy who said dairy cows produce 10 to 20 times the milk that beef cows do. If Yes, that 10x to 20 x figure must be an error, but it's not my error. Average milk production ratio between dairy and beef cattle might be 2 to 1 or even 3 to 1 (per wt of animal). Again, not comparing prize animals to herd averages, which wouldn't be fair (as there are no prize milk-producing Angus cows, that I know of. They don't even have a "within breed" prize. Though perhaps they should.) There are breeds like the Milking Shorthorn that have been bred for both milk and meat. But milk production in those breeds also convinces me that the ratio between milking breeds and meat breeds cannot possibly be as high as even 10 to 1, let alone 20. But as I said, I can find no absolute stats for the beef breeds on milk production, so am asking for figures if anybody has them. SBH From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition,alt.health,misc.health.alternative Subject: Re: Latest Dairy coverup Date: 5 Jun 2005 10:34:05 -0700 Message-ID: <1117992845.775535.107420@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> >>The problem these anti milk people don't want to admit is that when children are taken off milk they start drinking canned sodas.<< COMMENT: Strangely that didn't happen in my family. I'm sure that if parents keep soda at home and drink it themselves, that's more likely. It's much the same as cigarettes or any food. Kids raised with potato chips and soda use them in adult life, the same as kids raised with grits or kimchee or catsup on scrambled eggs, eat THEM when they grow up. Train up a child in the way that he should go, and when he is older, he will not depart from it. On average. The deaths from catsup on eggs and kimchee alone, are mindboggling. Nevermind Pepsi. SBH From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition,alt.health,misc.health.alternative Subject: Re: Latest Dairy coverup Date: 5 Jun 2005 11:19:32 -0700 Message-ID: <1117995571.999407.52660@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> > Almost killed my Uncle, a dairy farmer, despite advice by his marketting > board, persisted in drink raw dairy from his cows. > > He had an open heart surgery to remove a hardened calcium box from > around his heart. Gave him one year to live after the removal about 10 > years ago The surgeons said it was very rare but happens occasionally > typically to dairy farners drinking raw milk. COMMENT: Could be, but it would have been due to an infection. While there are a number of organisms that may be in raw milk, from bovine TB to Q fever to (most likely) Salmonella, that can cause pericarditis, is the pericarditis, not the milk, which causes the calcification. There is little good evidence that milk causes calcification of arteries or anything else other than bones. BTW, the arterial diseases that kill are assocated with local calcification of only (this is a side effet of any chronic inflammatory process), not the overall calcium depositing process that makes artery walls show up on X-rays (this is a completely different process, and a much more benign one). Ectopic calcification is associated in animals more with lack of nutrients like Mg and vitamin K. There are a number of sites on the net which blame homogenization of milk for arterial disease (typically blaming technology). But epidemiologically, milk per se (as opposed to butter and creme, which are different matters) does not cause arterial disease. Milk drinking (over all-- in meta-analysis of all large studies) is associated with a statistically significanly lower (10 to 20%) risk of both stroke and MI, and available evidence does not exist to separate effects of skim vs whole milk on that. They both look pretty much the same in the stats that are available. Evidently, going to non-fat does not decrease the benefit, so I would certainly recommend that (for other reasons, including calorie reduction). The benefit could be from the potassium or magnesium in milk, or who knows what. SBH From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative,alt.support.crohns-colitis,alt.health, sci.med.nutrition Subject: Re: Dairy Farmers' Shame Date: 5 Jun 2005 12:14:23 -0700 Message-ID: <1117998863.410839.52410@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> >>Could it be lactose intolerance might be Mother's Nature hint that humans past the age of weaning should NOT drink cow's milk? << No more than fair-skinned people's (relative) intolerance of the sun is Nature's hint that *nobody* should go outside without smearing themselves with SPF 50 sunblock. People differ. The kind of life your ancestors lived determines much about what kinds of life you yourself can tolerate in good health. If your skin is dark, you don't need as much sunblock. If you still have your lactase in adulthood, you can drink a lot more milk. This is not rocket science. SBH From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative,alt.support.crohns-colitis,alt.health, sci.med.nutrition Subject: Re: Dairy Farmers' Shame Date: 7 Jun 2005 13:24:30 -0700 Message-ID: <1118175870.232676.318190@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> >> those cultures with the strongest history of using cows milk have the least amount of lactose problems. Cultural areas, such as the far east, with no great use of milk in the food tradition have more problems, it is a genetic selection thing for having the enzyme to digest milk, if you don't drink milk you are unlikely to produce it in adulthood. The potential to be able to support cows in large numbers depends on the local ecology for the most part. No cows for food products no genetic selection for retaining the milk enzyme. << COMMENT: This is generally true (the African herder Masai keep their lactase production). Although there are some Mongollian cultures that don't, and fudge by fermenting all their (horse) milk products. From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative,alt.support.crohns-colitis,alt.health, sci.med.nutrition Subject: Re: Dairy Farmers' Shame Date: 8 Jun 2005 12:47:52 -0700 Message-ID: <1118260072.057029.89260@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> >>And the Masai are known to be healthier than neighboring groups that rely on more plant-sourced foods and less animal-sourced foods. << Well, milk has sugar levels similar to any "refined carb," and a glycemic index to match. this hardly bodes well for your own bandwaggon. Nor, for that matter, does the good health of people on the Mediterranean diet IN countries that border the Mediterranean. Pasta has the glycemic index of a refined carbohydrate no matter how it's made. Most breads people eat in Mediterranean countries are no better (ever eat Greek food?). What, you think the average Frenchman or Italian munches on 100% whole grain bread? I would suggest an enlightening trip to France and Italy. SBH From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition Subject: Re: AHA on margarine Date: 12 Jun 2005 19:56:02 -0700 Message-ID: <1118631362.753167.117540@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> >>Consider this: "Why do North Americans take in so much Dairy product, but have the world's highest rate of osteoporosis?" << COMMENT: Answer: because North Americans have the highest per capita number of DEXA bone density scanners. If you don't look for a disease, you may well not find it. Next question? >>Why? Because Dairy is so laden with protein that it blocks Calcium uptake. In fact, TOOMUCH protein leaches the Calcium FROM the bones. << COMMENT: This is an urban myth, fostered by comparing one countrie's osteoporosis rate to that of another, which is apples vs. oranges. There are numeous studies of milk consumption vs. osteoporosis WITHIN many countries (which control for all those between country variables, like genetics and number of dexa scanners), and they generally find that more milk drunk, the better. >>Experts" who are paid enuf will lie about anything. Check out the __"Physicians Committee For Responsible Medicine"__ website.<< COMMENT Indeed. But remember that those guys get paid by special interests, too, and would lose major donor funding if they ever said anything positive about any animal-derived food. If they found out that farm raised meat was bad for people, but (horrors) that an animal product like milk was actually good for them, what would they DO? They'd have a conflict between their philsophy and science, is what. Which do you suppose would win? If you want to find out, go the PCRM website and search on "fish". You'll get article after article on the toxins in fish. It is explained that fish aren't good for you. No, no, no. Never never never. http://www.pcrm.org/health/veginfo/essential_fatty_acids.html They do inally admit that a supplement of DHA (which cannot be gotten from land plants) is good for pregant women, but they ONLY made this recommendation after a microalgae source of DHA came on the market very recently. Before that, PCRM pretended that everyone can make all the DHA they need from the ALA in land plants. In other words, before there was a vegetarian source of DHA, pregant and nursing women didn't need it. But as soon as one became available, suddently they do. The whack-jobs at PCRM are PETA with an MD face. They do not care about reality. All they care about is their animal rights agenda. You the patient, indeed you, the human, come second. SBH From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.breastfeeding,misc.kids.health, alt.health,sci.med.nutrition Subject: Re: Dairy & Allegies Date: 13 Jun 2005 18:37:11 -0700 Message-ID: <1118713031.393121.42600@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Possibly she has gotten cow's milk allergy (with associated otitis media and bronchitis), mixed up with strep throat (a completely different thing). In any case, cow's milk allergy is rare. You can think of it in a child with many, many ear infections, but thinking of it in a child with many throat infections will get you zip. Ear infections are not throat infections. The causal factors are very different. SBH From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,soc.culture.usa, misc.health.alternative,alt.health,sci.med.nutrition Subject: Re: MILK MAY MAKE FOR HEAVIER KIDS, STUDY FINDS Date: 14 Jun 2005 08:46:45 -0700 Message-ID: <1118764005.178224.114000@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> >>But dairy / cow's milk does contribute to ear infections and respiratory problems like strep throats and asthma / lung congestion<< Strep throat is not a "respiratory problem." And there is no evidence that milk drinking contributes to it. A few children do have cow milk protein allergies, and they do have more ear and lung conjestion, due to the allergic bonchitis and otitis. I have a few foods that don't agree with me, either. But as a doctor I'd be stupid to generalize from that and warn people in generally away from them. It's just me. These foods are eaten generally by most people, without problem. I'm sure I could put together a club of people who itch after eating lots of raw strawberries, but what would be the point? Except narcissism. SBH From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,soc.culture.usa, misc.health.alternative,alt.health,sci.med.nutrition Subject: Re: MILK MAY MAKE FOR HEAVIER KIDS, STUDY FINDS Date: 15 Jun 2005 15:54:25 -0700 Message-ID: <1118876065.281382.163950@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> >>BINGO!! Thank you... you hit the nail right on the head. Or the milk from animals who have been given growth hormones, antibiotics and a plethora of other "unnatural" substances. I don't think it's a coincidence that we're seeing 9 or 10 yr old girls developing breasts - I've heard people joke that "it must be something in the water"... hmmmm.. close!! No offense to the doctor who posted above, but I firmly believe they simply repeat what they've been taught -- like parrots. I feel the majority of them prescribe a pill for an ailment instead of trying to figure out why the ailment exists. -- It's no wonder, though... the pharmaceutical companies DO have pretty deep pockets. << COMMENT: As discussed, pubertal development is happening earlier in ALL developed countries. Including places where hormones are not allowed in milk (the EU) and places where little milk is drunk (Japan). So milk is not the cause. The cause is adolescent weight gain. The fatter the girl, the earlier she enters puberty. It's nothing in the water. It is something in the hamburgers and the coke and the chips and the fries. It's called "Calories." If hormones in milk caused cancer, you'd expect to see it first in the GI tract. That was the whole argument about how milk IGF-1 might cause cancer in humans. Analysis of available studies shows no correlation between GI cancer and milk consumption. In fact, milk is protective against colorectal cancer, and I include a meta-analysis of many studies below. If hormones in milk were causing premature development in girls, you'd expect milk consumption to correlate with breast or ovarian cancer. It doesn't (see meta-analysis below). Milk consumption DOES positively correlate with prostate cancer risk, however! If you're going to make up a hormonal theory, you'd better base it around that. Unfortunately, so far as I can tell, they give milk cows (as opposed to beef cattle) all the wrong hormones to make this plausable. So I think the saturated fat intake from milk is a better explanation. But this is an area of active research, so who knows? The milk haters may yet find something to use as a hammer. SBH 1: Eur J Cancer Prev. 2005 Feb;14(1):13-9. Milk/dairy products consumption, galactose metabolism and ovarian cancer: meta-analysis of epidemiological studies. Qin LQ, Xu JY, Wang PY, Hashi A, Hoshi K, Sato A. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, University of Yamanashi, Tamaho, Shimokato 1110, Yamanashi 409-3898, Japan. shinr@res.yamanashi-med.ac.jp Ovarian cancer is the fifth most common cause of cancer death among women and the leading cause of gynaecological cancer death in the United States. Milk/dairy products consumption was considered to be a risk factor for ovarian cancer mainly because milk carbohydrate-lactose and galactose metabolism is toxic to oocytes. However, recent evidence does not support this hypothesis completely. We collected epidemiological studies related to the association between milk/dairy products consumption or galactose metabolism (lactose, galactose, galactose-1-phosphate uridyltransferase, lactose/transferase) and ovarian cancer published between January 1966 and August 2003 and found 27 items from 22 independent studies. Twenty studies were case-control studies and the other two were cohort studies. A meta-analysis method was conducted to estimate relative risk combining all relative data. In general, we did not find any association between milk/dairy products or galactose metabolism and ovarian cancer risk in this meta-analysis. The consumption of whole milk and butter, which contain relatively high amounts of fat, was positively (relative risk > 1.2), but not significantly, associated with an increased risk. Publication Types: Meta-Analysis PMID: 15677891 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 2: J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004 Jul 7;96(13):1015-22. Erratum in: J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004 Nov 17;96(22):1724. Dairy foods, calcium, and colorectal cancer: a pooled analysis of 10 cohort studies. Cho E, Smith-Warner SA, Spiegelman D, Beeson WL, van den Brandt PA, Colditz GA, Folsom AR, Fraser GE, Freudenheim JL, Giovannucci E, Goldbohm RA, Graham S, Miller AB, Pietinen P, Potter JD, Rohan TE, Terry P, Toniolo P, Virtanen MJ, Willett WC, Wolk A, Wu K, Yaun SS, Zeleniuch-Jacquotte A, Hunter DJ. Channing Laboratory, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA. eunyoung.cho@channing.harvard.edu BACKGROUND: Studies in animals have suggested that calcium may reduce the risk of colorectal cancer. However, results from epidemiologic studies of intake of calcium or dairy foods and colorectal cancer risk have been inconclusive. METHODS: We pooled the primary data from 10 cohort studies in five countries that assessed usual dietary intake by using a validated food frequency questionnaire at baseline. For most studies, follow-up was extended beyond that in the original publication. The studies included 534 536 individuals, among whom 4992 incident cases of colorectal cancer were diagnosed between 6 and 16 years of follow-up. Pooled multivariable relative risks for categories of milk intake and quintiles of calcium intake and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Milk intake was related to a reduced risk of colorectal cancer. Compared with the lowest category of intake (<70 g/day), relative risks of colorectal cancer for increasing categories (70-174, 175-249, and > or =250 g/day) of milk intake were 0.94 (95% CI = 0.86 to 1.02), 0.88 (95% CI = 0.81 to 0.96), and 0.85 (95% CI = 0.78 to 0.94), respectively (P(trend)<.001). Calcium intake was also inversely related to the risk of colorectal cancer. The relative risk for the highest versus the lowest quintile of intake was 0.86 (95% CI = 0.78 to 0.95; P(trend) =.02) for dietary calcium and 0.78 (95% CI = 0.69 to 0.88; P(trend)<.001) for total calcium (combining dietary and supplemental sources). These results were consistent across studies and sex. The inverse association for milk was limited to cancers of the distal colon (P(trend)<.001) and rectum (P(trend) =.02). CONCLUSION: Higher consumption of milk and calcium is associated with a lower risk of colorectal cancer. Publication Types: Meta-Analysis PMID: 15240785 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 3: Int J Epidemiol. 2002 Feb;31(1):78-85. Comment in: Int J Epidemiol. 2002 Feb;31(1):86-7. Meat and dairy food consumption and breast cancer: a pooled analysis of cohort studies. Missmer SA, Smith-Warner SA, Spiegelman D, Yaun SS, Adami HO, Beeson WL, van den Brandt PA, Fraser GE, Freudenheim JL, Goldbohm RA, Graham S, Kushi LH, Miller AB, Potter JD, Rohan TE, Speizer FE, Toniolo P, Willett WC, Wolk A, Zeleniuch-Jacquotte A, Hunter DJ. Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA 02115-6096, USA. stacey.missmer@channing.harvard.edu BACKGROUND: More than 20 studies have investigated the relation between meat and dairy food consumption and breast cancer risk with conflicting results. Our objective was to evaluate the risk of breast cancer associated with meat and dairy food consumption and to assess whether non-dietary risk factors modify the relation. METHODS: We combined the primary data from eight prospective cohort studies from North America and Western Europe with at least 200 incident breast cancer cases, assessment of usual food and nutrient intakes, and a validation study of the dietary assessment instrument. The pooled database included 351,041 women, 7379 of whom were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer during up to 15 years of follow-up. RESULTS: We found no significant association between intakes of total meat, red meat, white meat, total dairy fluids, or total dairy solids and breast cancer risk. Categorical analyses suggested a J-shaped association for egg consumption where, compared to women who did not eat eggs, breast cancer risk was slightly decreased among women who consumed < 2 eggs per week but slightly increased among women who consumed > or = 1 egg per day. CONCLUSIONS: We found no significant associations between intake of meat or dairy products and risk of breast cancer. An inconsistent relation between egg consumption and risk of breast cancer merits further investigation. 4: Nutr Cancer. 2004;48(1):22-7. Milk consumption is a risk factor for prostate cancer: meta-analysis of case-control studies. Qin LQ, Xu JY, Wang PY, Kaneko T, Hoshi K, Sato A. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, University of Yamanashi, Shimokato, Japan. shinr@res.yamanashi-med.ac.jp Prostate cancer has become the most common cancer among men in the United States. Although milk consumption is considered to be a risk factor in some epidemiological studies, the results are inconsistent. A meta-analysis method was conducted to estimate the combined odds ratio (OR) between milk consumption and prostate cancer from case-control studies published between 1984 and 2003 using commercial software (comprehensive meta-analysis). The combined OR was 1.68 (95% confidence interval = 1.34-2.12) in the 11 published case-control studies. The combined OR varied little by study stratification. Additionally, we evaluated the possible risk factors in milk for prostate cancer. In conclusion, we found a positive association between milk consumption and prostate cancer. The underlying mechanisms, including fat, calcium, hormones, and other factors, should be investigated further. Copyright 2004 Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Publication Types: Meta-Analysis PMID: 15203374 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Publication Types: Meta-Analysis PMID: 11914299 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,soc.culture.usa, misc.health.alternative,alt.health,sci.med.nutrition Subject: Re: MILK MAY MAKE FOR HEAVIER KIDS, STUDY FINDS Date: 16 Jun 2005 19:03:53 -0700 Message-ID: <1118973833.402139.232360@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> >>The so-called milk haters will say the heavy, thick casein protein contained in cow's milk may be very hard for humans to digest. << COMMENT: Have you ever seen casein? What makes you think it's "thick" or "heavy" in any way? I used to use casein as an ingredient in semi-synthetic rodent diets. It looks like any other protein. It's a light grey powder. Mice do fine eating casein as their ONLY protein. And since casein in the major protein in most enteral liquid feeding products, evidently so do people. Do you just make this stuff up as you go along? SBH From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative,alt.health,sci.med.nutrition Subject: Re: milk price Date: 18 Jun 2005 19:30:24 -0700 Message-ID: <1119148224.731725.186800@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> >>We *all* pay too little for so many things: milk, oil, gas, water. << Indeed. All are subsidized by our wise government (both here and in Canada) so the consumer doesn't see the true costs. Not even the true present cost, let alone the long-term environmental cost (ie, the difference between what you pay now to produce it unsustainably, and what it would cost if it were to be produced sustainably). Here in California our wise government subsidizes the price of water in the Imperial Valley. With the result that cotton and rice (which are properly flood plain and monsoon crops, respectively) are grown in the middle of the desert! Or what would be a desert, if not for our mania for taxpayer subsidized "public works." Go figure. In the middle of this, hear the Left accuse big business of raping the environment. LOL. SBH From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative,alt.health,sci.med.nutrition Subject: Re: milk price Date: 18 Jun 2005 20:25:42 -0700 Message-ID: <1119151542.114173.173100@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> >>Water is ridiculously cheap. Instead of efforts to conserve North Americans seem bent on finding ways to get more. So which Canadian mountain spring did your cheap water come from? << COMMENT: None. In the Imperial Valley it's Colorado river water. Which comes from the Rockies on this side of the continental divide, far from Canada. LA gets a lot of water from Sierra Nevada, Inyo, and White Mnt runnoff that otherwise would have gone into the Owens Valley. Nowhere near Canada, but still far enough from LA to cause longstanding unhappiness in California. SBH From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative,alt.health,sci.med.nutrition Subject: Re: milk price Date: 18 Jun 2005 22:12:24 -0700 Message-ID: <1119157944.224238.275670@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> Roll of the weather dice. Are you thinking that global warming has caused not enough rain in the past few years, or too much this year? I'm agnostic on the subject of global warming. If the Earth isn't warming, it ought to be. And if we burn all the fossil fuel we know if, I can't see that we can avoid it, eventually. I personally recommend building more nuclear reactors, in spades. But it's not a popular option. Down here, the Right wants to burn oil like crazy and trust in God, and the Left wants to us all to cram up together and live like Tokyo (the Left wet dream) and use trains and bicycles. Both parties nuts, as usual. SBH From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative,alt.health,sci.med.nutrition Subject: Re: milk price Date: 18 Jun 2005 21:01:46 -0700 Message-ID: <1119153706.575557.179300@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> >> In pre-Civil War days, the USA South grew cotton. Are the Southern USA states known as "flood plain" states? << Have you heard of the Mississippi delta? It shines like a national guitar.... Cotton CAN be grown on other than natural flood plains, if you have irrigation. They grew a lot of cotton in Arizona, of all places. But it's usually not a happy use of land or water, except in places where there's water to spare. Which are fewer and fewer places in this world. Water is surely turning up to be the worst critical resource of them all. Far worse than land or air, and worse even than energy. At the VERY high energies required for desalination, it's a tossup But you sure as hell won't be growing cotton with THAT water. SBH From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative,alt.health,sci.med.nutrition Subject: Re: milk price Date: 18 Jun 2005 20:28:57 -0700 Message-ID: <1119151737.004972.307140@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> "Agricomplex" is part government. In the Western US it's MOSTLY goverment. The damn people who dammed up the Colorado were feds. The states and private businesses wouldn't have dared. And properly so. I wish the feds hadn't dared, either. SBH From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition,alt.health,misc.health.alternative Subject: Re: to drink, or not to drink, MILK Date: 19 Jun 2005 13:56:43 -0700 Message-ID: <1119214603.549006.283410@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> >>Chocolate milk from the store is a no-no. When the pasteurizers get smuggy from scorched milk they make chocolate milk before cleaning them out. So it is best to make your own chocolate milk from scratch. A man from the USDA told me that. << COMMENT: Well, damn me! That explains my long dislike of commercial chocolate milk. It used to taste good, but it seemed to me that since the late 70's it's tasted burned and crappy, with some kind of hydrocarbon like overtone, and I haven't liked it since. Though stuff made with normal milk and powdered chocolate from Hershey continues to taste fine to me. Ha! Some people can't taste the difference, though, or the crap wouldn't continue to sell. Which it does. SBH From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,soc.culture.usa, misc.health.alternative,alt.health,sci.med.nutrition Subject: Re: MILK MAY MAKE FOR HEAVIER KIDS, STUDY FINDS Date: 19 Jun 2005 15:19:20 -0700 Message-ID: <1119219560.836450.119350@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> >>'More recent studies have suggested that IGF-I does have growth effects on the gut. In 1988 French and Danish researchers showed that IGF-I receptors are found throughout the intestines, with the highest density occurring in the crypt cells in the epithelium of the colon: "125I-IGF-I and 125I-IGF-II binding is 4.0 and 1.8-fold higher in crypt cells than in villus cells, respectively. Specific 125I-IGF-I binding is detectable throughout the gastrointestinal tract. The level of IGF binding is similar in stomach, small intestine, and cecum, but higher values are observed in the colon" (Laburthe et al., 1988: G457).' http://www.consumersunion.org/=ADfood/bgh-codex.htm << COMMENT: Yes, indeed, but growth in gut cells is not necessarily a bad thing. If you're eating, it's what you want to happen. Duh. If you want to find out whether or not IGF-1 causes cancer in the gut, you have to do the direct experiments to find out. Feed animals IGF and see if they get cancer. So far, no such experiment has shown any such thing. Your own gut makes its own IGF-1 and it's present in your own gastric secretions at much large daily doses than you get from milk. It seems unlikely that a milk contribution makes any difference. As noted, milk drinking is epidemiologically protective against gut cancer. Which may mean nothing, but certainly is good evidence against the idea that milk CAUSES gut cancer. Negative epidemiologic studies (no correlation between two variables, or a negative correlation) provide much more valuable information than positive ones. Do I have to explain why? Think about it. It's a test. >>"Higher levels of insulin-like growth factor 1, or IGF-1, have been assoc= iated with increased risk of colon, lung and breast cancer" << COMMENT: Indeed, but this does not prove causation. HIgher amounts of yellowing of teeth have been associated with lung cancer too, but that doesn't mean yellow teeth cause lung cancer. >>.. consumption of 3 glasses of milk per day increased serum IGF-1 levels = by about 10% compared to those that didn't drink milk. .. http://www.organi= cconsumers.or=ADg/rbgh/cancer091302.cfm << COMMENT: Yes, but there's no reason to think that this was due to the IGF-1 in milk. The evidence is that this is a general protein supplement effect, and works just as well with soy milk as cow milk. You can look at Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention Vol. 11, 1441-1448, November 2002, which indeed shows that vegan women have 10% lower blood levels of IGF-1 compared to meat eater and ovo-lacto vegetarians. See full text http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/full/11/11/1441. But it also says: Quote: "Increasing dairy milk intake was not significantly associated with increasing serum IGF-I concentration in meat-eaters or vegetarians (Table 6) or among both groups combined (data not shown). However, vegan women who consumed 3/4 pint or more of soya milk/day had a significant 28% higher IGF-I concentration than vegan women who did not drink soya milk." IOW, the study found that the likely cause of increased IGF-1 in non-vegans was their greater intake of PROTEIN, and that vegans can increase their blood IGF-1 levels by 28% just from the soy protein in SOY MILK (which has no IGF-1). Thus, previous studies which show 10% increases in IGF-1 in the blood of people given milk supplements, are shorwing the effect of a protein supplement, and this works just as well when the protein supplement is soy milk. How come you're not out complaining about the dangers of soy milk, eh? >>'... , the body's inherent and self-regulating use of IGFs cannot be comp= ared to external oral administration.<< COMMENT: To the extent that it's self regulating, the gut should sense and make up for any IGF from milk delivered to the gut, since gut fluids NORMALLY contain more IGF than milk does. You're arguing against your own viewpoint here. All of your gut fluids, from spit to gastric fluid, contain about the same concentrations of IGF as milk, and they are produced in fluid amounts far higher than milk intake. Breast milk, cow milk, and spit-- it's all about the same IGF concentration. Do you swallow your own spit? How much? Several liters a day. Is the spit IGF going to kill you? Do you worry about it? >>The location of the IGF is critical to its use and impacts. Clearly IGFs in the blood stream play some purpose that in no way parallels action in the gut . << COMMENT: Clearly they do. You need IGF to grow (it's the way growth hormone works). Without it, you're a dwarf. And not just mentally. Yes, meat and protein-eating does increase IGF. And this is probably one mechanism how protein consumption makes for taller people! That's how we got 6 ft tall Japanese, finally. But that protein, and that increase in IGF, wasn't from cow milk. The Japanese don't tolerate it well, and don't drink a lot of it. We could probably cut protein consumption until we began to see lower IGF levels and stunted growth in people. We might even cut down some cancer risk while we're at it. It's called dietary restriction. It's an interesting issue, but it has nothing to do with cows. SBH From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> Newsgroups: sci.med,sci.med.nutrition Subject: Re: does drinking more milk increase rates of hip fractures? Date: 22 Jun 2005 13:12:52 -0700 Message-ID: <1119471172.687440.100730@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> >>CONCLUSIONS: These data do not support the hypothesis that higher consumption of milk or other food sources of calcium by adult women protects against hip or forearm fractures. << COMMENT: Well, actually, what is not supported is that higher amount of milk on dietary recall studies is associated with lower rates of hip fracture. Meta-analysis of many available such studies generally show the same thing. Several prospective studies of calcium supplements, however, do show a protective effect, which raises the question of whether or not the calcium source difference is the problem, or the dietary recall epidemology is the problem. I know of no prospective randomized studies on milk and fracture--- they would need to be too large and of course couldn't be blinded (though for fracture endpoint, probably blinding isn't a big issue). There are a couple of studies of calcium and bone density that are prospective, but they're funded by the milk lobby and use a proxy variable, so are open to criticism. In general, epidemiologic studies are more useful for refuting a purported causal relation than for PROVING a purported causal relation. Even if there was a NEGATIVE epidemiologic correlation between milk drinking and fracture, all we could infer is that milk probably doesn't CONTRIBUTE to fracture in a big way. A null result gives much the same conclusion. As I read it, the best evidence is that women are better advised to take calcium supplements for their calcium, and consider milk-drinking harmless recreation. As with chocolate cake. SBH Osteoporos Int. 2004 Oct 21; [Epub ahead of print] A meta-analysis of milk intake and fracture risk: low utility for case finding. Kanis JA, Johansson H, Oden A, De Laet C, Johnell O, Eisman JA, McCloskey E, Mellstrom D, Pols H, Reeve J, Silman A, Tenenhouse A. WHO Collaborating Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Beech Hill Road, S10 2RX, Sheffield, UK. A low intake of calcium is widely considered to be a risk factor for future fracture. The aim of this study was to quantify this risk on an international basis and to explore the effect of age, gender and bone mineral density (BMD) on this risk. We studied 39,563 men and women (69% female) from six prospectively studied cohorts comprising EVOS/EPOS, CaMos, DOES, the Rotterdam study, the Sheffield study and a cohort from Gothenburg. Cohorts were followed for 152,000 person-years. The effect of calcium intake as judged by the intake of milk on the risk of any fracture, any osteoporotic fracture and hip fracture alone was examined using a Poisson model for each sex from each cohort. Covariates examined were age and BMD. The results of the different studies were merged by using the weighted beta-coefficients. A low intake of calcium (less than 1 glass of milk daily) was not associated with a significantly increased risk of any fracture, osteoporotic fracture or hip fracture. There was no difference in risk ratio between men and women. When both sexes were combined there was a small but non-significant increase in the risk of osteoporotic and of hip fracture. There was also a small increase in the risk of an osteoporotic fracture with age which was significant at the age of 80 years (RR=1.15; 95% CI=1.02-1.30) and above. The association was no longer significant after adjustment for BMD. No significant relationship was observed by age for low milk intake and hip fracture risk. We conclude that a self-reported low intake of milk is not associated with any marked increase in fracture risk and that the use of this risk indicator is of little or no value in case-finding strategies. PMID: 15502959 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher] ======================================= J Bone Miner Res. 1997 Sep;12(9):1321-9. Calcium for prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women. Cumming RG, Nevitt MC. Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of Sydney, Australia. A systematic review of the literature was conducted to assess the effectiveness of calcium supplements and/or dietary calcium for the prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women. Studies were identified by conducting a Medline search using the text words "fracture" and "calcium" for the period 1966 to March 1997 and by reviewing articles known to the authors. Only studies with fracture outcomes were eligible. There were 14 studies of calcium supplements (including 4 randomized trials), 18 studies of dietary calcium and hip fracture (no randomized trials), and 5 studies of dietary calcium and other fracture sites (no randomized trials). The 4 randomized trials of calcium supplements (mean calcium dose: 1050 mg) found relative risk (RR) reductions between 25% and 70%. Meta-analytic techniques for dose-response data were used to investigate and pool the findings of 16 observational studies of dietary calcium and hip fracture. These hip fracture studies were not consistent and heterogeneity of study findings (p = 0.02) was not easily explained by subject characteristics or study design. Pooling study results gave an odds ratio (OR) of 0.96 (95% confidence interval, (CI) 0.93-0.99) per 300 mg/day increase in calcium intake (the equivalent of one glass of milk). This is likely to be an underestimate of calcium's true effect because of inaccurate measurement of dietary calcium in observational studies. This review supports the current clinical and public health policy of recommending increased calcium intake among older women for fracture prevention. Publication Types: Meta-Analysis PMID: 9286747 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> Newsgroups: sci.med,sci.med.nutrition Subject: Re: does drinking more milk increase rates of hip fractures? Date: 22 Jun 2005 13:41:51 -0700 Message-ID: <1119472911.489252.295050@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> >>There are a couple of studies of calcium and bone density that are prospective, but they're funded by the milk lobby and use a proxy variable, so are open to criticism. << I wrote "calcium" but meant to write that there are few studies of MILK SUPPLEMENTATION that are prospective. You can show prospectively that milk supplements increase bone density in women, but the studies have not been large enough to show a difference even in vertebral fracture, let alone hip fracture. SBH From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> Newsgroups: sci.med,sci.med.nutrition Subject: Re: does drinking more milk increase rates of hip fractures? Date: 22 Jun 2005 13:16:26 -0700 Message-ID: <1119471386.741154.88740@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> >>I have been told that when you evaluate the top vs the bottom quintile for milk consumption among women, the former had the highest rate of hip fractures, and the latter the lowest. True? << COMMENT: I might add that prevention of high and forearm fracture is the hardest of the hard problems in osteoporosis prevention. Both these depend on loss of cortical bone, which is less susceptable to calcium supplement intervention loss than trabecular bone (ie, what's inside vertebrae), and which is what goes first and worse in classic type I homone-related osteoporosis. It make well be that milk drinking, like calcium, has a far bigger impact on widow's hump than hip fracture. SBH From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> Newsgroups: sci.med,sci.med.nutrition Subject: Re: does drinking more milk increase rates of hip fractures? Date: 22 Jun 2005 15:20:31 -0700 Message-ID: <1119478831.469622.106670@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> >>Osteoporosis? This whole osteoporosis thing is a load of hooey. The standard they are measuring women against is a 30 year old woman. << No, no. Google "DEXA Z-score" and educate yourself. Then get back to us. SBH From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> Newsgroups: sci.med,sci.med.nutrition Subject: Re: does drinking more milk increase rates of hip fractures? Date: 22 Jun 2005 15:43:51 -0700 Message-ID: <1119480231.155857.291850@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> >>Few women over 30 will meet that standard; neither will they at 50, and certainly not at 70. That does not mean they have a disease process. << COMMENT: If I understand your point, it comes up against the question of whether or not to regard "normal" or "average" age-related changes as "diseases." My answer is that if it breaks your hip and kills you, or even if it crushes your spine and gives you a hump, it's reasonable to think of it as a disease. Disease = "dis - ease". Something that screws up your life. Of course, there are people who refuse to be labeled as having a "disease" no matter what. People 4 feet tall. People 5 feet tall and 400 lbs. People HIV positive. People whose bones are thin as tissue paper. Denial isn't just a long river in Egypt. And that's fine with me if people absolutely insist that they are healthier than I think they are. The ultimate judge of health is the natural course of things. If it breaks under normal stress, I submit that it wasn't healthy. Is there some age beyond which *nobody* is healthy? Sure. That's why the human life span is limited. If you refuse to see things that way, then YOU explain it. SBH From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> Newsgroups: sci.med,sci.med.nutrition Subject: Re: does drinking more milk increase rates of hip fractures? Date: 22 Jun 2005 17:05:25 -0700 Message-ID: <1119485125.306220.81740@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> It's around two standard deviations, depending on whose definitions you like. But it's a lot. The Z-score IS used to give you a look at how you're doing compared to average for your age, sex, and race. This is helpful. The T-score defines the disease because nature doesn't grade on a curve. From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> Newsgroups: sci.med,sci.med.nutrition Subject: Re: does drinking more milk increase rates of hip fractures? Date: 23 Jun 2005 14:51:41 -0700 Message-ID: <1119563501.791175.186260@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> >>Perhaps you or our esteemed Dr. Harris would care to debate cow milk science on live radio or tv with Robert Cohen? << And have him speak a gallon of nonsense while I'm struggling to get in a pint of reason? We have pretty good debating medium right here on the internet. If somebody says something, it's on the record and they can't claim they didn't say it. People can't make points without backup, without getting called on their sources. There's time for either side to read and evaluate new studies that the other hasn't seen. You can't have any decent fact-based debate without time for rebuttal and study of sources. If Cohen wants to debate me right here, bring him on. SBH From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> Newsgroups: sci.med,sci.med.nutrition Subject: Re: does drinking more milk increase rates of hip fractures? Date: 23 Jun 2005 13:04:10 -0700 Message-ID: <1119555908.406018.275230@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> >The role of calcium in builidng strong bones. Priest says calcium has >been way overrated. Much more important is physical >activity and Vit D. That's probably correct, and is even more correct for children and young adults than for older ones. A lot of the milk studies are confounded by the fact that the milk is usually UV irradiated and therefore supplemented with vitamin D. Here's one for the pediatricians, a very large meta analysis. Result. Bonewise, milk per se does little good, but also no harm in kids. Both boosters and detractors of routine milk for kids as a way to build strong bones, are going to be unhappy. Doesn't it suck when practically EVERYBODY is wrong, establishment AND antiestablishment? Pediatrics. 2005 Mar;115(3):736-43. Comment in: Pediatrics. 2005 Mar;115(3):792-4. Calcium, dairy products, and bone health in children and young adults: a reevaluation of the evidence. Lanou AJ, Berkow SE, Barnard ND. Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, 5100 Wisconsin Ave NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20016, USA. alanou@pcrm.org OBJECTIVE: Numerous nutrition policy statements recommend the consumption of 800 to 1500 mg of calcium largely from dairy products for osteoporosis prevention; however, the findings of epidemiologic and prospective studies have raised questions about the efficacy of the use of dairy products for the promotion of bone health. The objective of this study was to review existing literature on the effects of dairy products and total dietary calcium on bone integrity in children and young adults to assess whether evidence supports (1) current recommended calcium intake levels and (2) the suggestion that dairy products are better for promoting bone integrity than other calcium-containing food sources or supplements. METHODS: A Medline (National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD) search was conducted for studies published on the relationship between milk, dairy products, or calcium intake and bone mineralization or fracture risk in children and young adults (1-25 years). This search yielded 58 studies: 22 cross-sectional studies; 13 retrospective studies; 10 longitudinal prospective studies; and 13 randomized, controlled trials. RESULTS: Eleven of the studies did not control for weight, pubertal status, and exercise and were excluded. Ten studies were randomized, controlled trials of supplemental calcium, 9 of which showed modest positive benefits on bone mineralization in children and adolescents. Of the remaining 37 studies of dairy or unsupplemented dietary calcium intake, 27 studies found no relationship between dairy or dietary calcium intake and measures of bone health. In the remaining 9 reports, the effects on bone health are small and 3 were confounded by vitamin D intake from milk fortified with vitamin D. Therefore, in clinical, longitudinal, retrospective, and cross-sectional studies, neither increased consumption of dairy products, specifically, nor total dietary calcium consumption has shown even a modestly consistent benefit for child or young adult bone health. CONCLUSION: Scant evidence supports nutrition guidelines focused specifically on increasing milk or other dairy product intake for promoting child and adolescent bone mineralization. Publication Types: Review PMID: 15741380 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] The case for milk and calcium as a way to prevent bone loss in type I osteoporosis is a bit stronger, but confounded with vitamin D, and (as noted) is mainly based on bone calcium measurements and hasn't been big enough or long enough to directly show a lower major fracture rate at hip or arm. Here's a milk study, but uncontrolled for vitamin D. All you can say is it provides evidence that milk per se doesn't do harm. Osteoporos Int. 2003 Oct;14(10):828-34. Epub 2003 Aug 12. The effect of milk supplementation on bone mineral density in postmenopausal Chinese women in Malaysia. Chee WS, Suriah AR, Chan SP, Zaitun Y, Chan YM. Department of Nutrition & Dietetics, Faculty of Allied Health Sciences, National University of Malaysia, Jalan Raja Muda Abdul Aziz, 50300 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. winnie@medic.ukm.my Dietary studies often report low calcium intake amongst post-menopausal Malaysian women and calcium deficiency has been implicated as part of the etiology of age-related bone loss leading to osteoporosis. Therefore, the objective of this study was to examine the effectiveness of high calcium skimmed milk (Anlene Gold, New Zealand Milk, Wellington, New Zealand) to reduce bone loss in Chinese postmenopausal women. Two hundred subjects aged 55-65 years and who were more than 5 years postmenopausal were randomized to a milk group and control group. The milk group consumed 50 g of high calcium skimmed milk powder daily, which contained 1200 mg calcium (taken as two glasses of milk a day). The control group continued with their usual diet. Using repeated measures ANCOVA, the milk supplement was found to significantly reduce the percentage of bone loss at the total body compared to the control group at 24 months (control -1.04%, milk -0.13%; P<0.001). At the lumbar spine, the percentage of bone loss in the control group was significantly higher (-0.90%) when compared to the milk (-0.13%) supplemented group at 24 months (P<0.05). Similarly, milk supplementation reduced the percentage of bone loss at the femoral neck (control -1.21%, milk 0.51%) (P<0.01) and total hip (control -2.17%, milk -0.50%) (P<0.01). The supplemented group did not experience any significant weight gain over the 24 months. The serum 25-hydroxy vitamin D level improved significantly (P<0.01) from 69.1 +/- 16.1 nmol/l at baseline to 86.4 +/- 22.0 nmol/l at 24 months in the milk group. In conclusion, ingestion of high calcium skimmed milk was effective in reducing the rate of bone loss at clinically important lumbar spine and hip sites in postmenopausal Chinese women in Malaysia. Supplementing with milk had additional benefits of improving the serum 25-hydroxy vitamin D status of the subjects. Publication Types: Clinical Trial Randomized Controlled Trial PMID: 12915959 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Here's much the same kind of study in New England, showing much the same kind of thing. Note that again, milk is better than placebo, and just about as good as a calcium supplement. However, again both groups got vitamin D and this may just as well explain the effect. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1998 Nov;83(11):3817-25. Calcium supplementation prevents seasonal bone loss and changes in biochemical markers of bone turnover in elderly New England women: a randomized placebo-controlled trial. Storm D, Eslin R, Porter ES, Musgrave K, Vereault D, Patton C, Kessenich C, Mohan S, Chen T, Holick MF, Rosen CJ. St. Joseph Hospital, Bangor, Maine 04401, USA. Elderly women are at increased risk for bone loss and fractures. In previous cross-sectional and longitudinal studies of women residing in northern latitudes, bone loss was most pronounced during winter months and in those consuming less than 1 g calcium per day. In this study we sought to test the hypothesis that calcium supplementation by either calcium carbonate or dietary means would prevent seasonal bone loss and preserve bone mass. Sixty older postmenopausal women without osteoporosis were randomized to one of three treatment arms: Dietary milk supplementation (D-4 glasses of milk/day), Calcium carbonate (CaCO3-1000 mg/day in two divided doses), or placebo (P). After 2 yr, placebo-treated women consumed a mean of 683 mg/day of calcium and lost 3.0% of their greater trochanteric (GT) bone mineral density (BMD) (P < 0.03 vs. baseline); Dietary supplemented women averaged a calcium intake of 1028 mg/day and sustained minimal loss from the GT (-1.5%; P = 0.30), whereas CaCO3-treated women (total Ca intake, 1633 mg/day) suffered no bone loss from the GT and showed a significant increase in spinal and femoral neck BMD (P < 0.05). Femoral bone loss occurred exclusively during the two winters of the study (i.e. total loss, -3.2%; P < 0.02 in placebo-treated women) with virtually no change in GT BMD during summer. Serum 25-OH vitamin D declined by more than 20% (P < 0.001) in all groups during the winter months but returned to baseline in summer; PTH levels rose approximately 20% (P < 0.001) during winter but did not return to baseline during the summers. Urine N-telopeptide and osteocalcin levels increased significantly but only in the P-treated women and only during winter. Serum insulin growth factor binding protein 4, an inhibitory insulin growth factor binding protein, rose 15% (P < 0.03) from summer to winter, but this increase was significant only in those women consuming <1000 mg/day of calcium. By multivariate analysis, total calcium intake was the strongest predictor of bone loss from the hip. Urinary N-telopeptide also closely correlated with GT BMD but only during winter (P = 0.003). We conclude that calcium supplementation prevents bone loss in elderly women by suppressing bone turnover during the winter when serum 25-OH vitamin D declines and serum PTH increases. The precise amount of calcium necessary to preserve BMD in elderly women requires further studies, although in this study, at least 1000 mg/day of supplemental calcium was adequate prophylaxis against femoral bone loss. Publication Types: Clinical Trial Randomized Controlled Trial PMID: 9814452 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] And here's one more prospective study, again with the vitamin D problem. J Bone Miner Res. 1995 Jul;10(7):1068-75. The effects of calcium supplementation (milk powder or tablets) and exercise on bone density in postmenopausal women. Prince R, Devine A, Dick I, Criddle A, Kerr D, Kent N, Price R, Randell A. Department of Medicine, University of Western Australia, Nedlands. The etiology of age-related bone loss is unclear but both lack of exercise and dietary calcium deficiency have been implicated in its causation. This 2-year randomized placebo-controlled study was designed to examine the effects of increased dietary calcium and exercise in 168 women who were more than 10 years postmenopausal. The subjects were randomized into one of 4 groups: placebo, milk powder containing 1 g of calcium, calcium tablets 1 g/night, and calcium tablets 1 g/night and an exercise regimen. The exercise group aimed to undertake 4 h of extra weight-bearing exercise per week and were undertaking 10% more activity than other groups at 2 years. Bone mineral density at the lumbar spine, three hip sites, and two sites of the tibia close to the ankle joint were measured at 6 month intervals. Dietary intake was evaluated by a weighed food record, exercise was evaluated by an exercise diary, and blood and urine samples were obtained to examine effects on calcium homeostasis. Individual data points were compared using repeated measures ANOVA and least squares regression. Calcium supplementation by either the calcium tablets or the milk powder resulted in cessation of bone loss at the intertrochanteric hip site (placebo, calcium tablets, calcium and exercise, milk powder -0.81, +0.17, +0.23, and +0.07% per year, respectively; p < 0.05 for all supplementation groups compared with placebo) with similar results at the trochanteric hip site. The calcium and exercise group had less bone loss at the femoral neck site when compared with calcium supplementation alone (placebo, calcium tablets, calcium and exercise, milk powder -0.67, -0.18, +0.28, and -0.18% per year, respectively; p < 0.05 for calcium and exercise compared with calcium alone). There was a significant reduction in the rate of bone loss at the ultradistal site of the tibia (placebo, calcium tablets, calcium and exercise, milk powder -2.5, -1.6, -1.0, and -1.5% per year, respectively; p < 0.05 for all supplementation groups compared with placebo). There was no significant bone loss at the spine site in any group.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS) Publication Types: Clinical Trial Randomized Controlled Trial PMID: 7484282 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Final comment: The reason it's so hard to do milk studies WITHOUT the vitamin D is that it's almost impossible to find unfortified milk these days, unless you get it raw and unprocessed. That's no excuse for not doing a vitamin D only control in these things, though. Still, studies like this I think are adequate to put the screws to the nuts who say processed milk (with its vitamin D) is actually bad for women with osteoporosis. Clearly, it is not. Clearly, it's better than water. Sorry, alternative weenies. SBH From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> Newsgroups: sci.med,sci.med.nutrition Subject: Re: does drinking more milk increase rates of hip fractures? Date: 23 Jun 2005 11:27:59 -0700 Message-ID: <1119551279.945375.164320@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> >>This stands to reason because of milks great calcium - magnesium imbalance. The bones turn to chalk and the digestive system gets irritated to the point of uselessness and malnutition results. << COMMENT: Did you read the posted studies? Anyway, Pizza Girl, you might be interested in the fact that human milk has the same calcium/magesium ratio as cow's milk: about 10 to 1. If the baby's bones don't turn to chalk, it's rather unlikely that the adult's do. SBH From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> Newsgroups: sci.med,sci.med.nutrition Subject: Re: does drinking more milk increase rates of hip fractures? Date: 27 Jun 2005 10:10:32 -0700 Message-ID: <1119892232.570008.245270@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> >>The calcium /magnesium balance is the problem. Too much dairy results in decreased magnesium. Osteoporosis is simply 'chalky' bones.<< COMMENT: Ignorant sod. In osteroporosis the bone gets thinner and disappears. That's left has composition which is very close to normal for bone. There's nothing chalky about it. SBH From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition Subject: Re: soymilk --- any good?? Date: 26 Jun 2005 16:25:47 -0700 Message-ID: <1119828347.642578.72580@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> There's nothing really in milk you can't easily get someplace else. Soymilk by comparison is going to be low in calcium, unless fortified. It also doesn't have as much magnesium or potassium as milk. The last two are easily obtainable in fruit juice. Calcium fortified OJ makes soy milk look bad, mineral-wise, and also has folate. Depends on what you're looking for. SBH From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative,alt.health,sci.med.nutrition Subject: Re: milk & grocery cashier Date: 1 Jul 2005 17:15:18 -0700 Message-ID: <1120263318.594436.228910@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> >>Nutrients? Like animal protein that causes an acid condition that leaches bone calcium?<< Milk does not leach bone calcium. There is some evidence that soda pop phosphate does. >>Or like the poor calcium to magnesium ratio that makes cow milk a poor source of absorpable calcium for people?<< Cow milk has the same calcium/magesium ratio as human milk. This ratio does not effect calcium absorption. If it did, human babies would not survive. SBH From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative,alt.health,sci.med.nutrition Subject: Re: milk & grocery cashier Date: 2 Jul 2005 17:13:43 -0700 Message-ID: <1120349623.650624.308020@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> Steve Harris wrote: > >>Ordinary milk often lacks the BGH too, but you can't be sure. << > BGH doesn't get into milk. What does, is the secondary hormone which > BGF induces, called IGF-1. However, all milk contains IGF-1 (including > normal cow and human milk), and r-BGH treatment of cows increases > normal levels of IGF-1 so little that it's hard to tell the difference, > except statistically (ie, the mean difference is far less than the > normal statistical spread in IGF-1 levels). Banmilk: >>gee Harris, I guess when MONSANTO admitted to an 80% increase in IGF-1 in their 55,000 pages of documentation on the matter they must have gotten it all wrong? Whadda ya think? Think they got it all wrong after $500 MILLION spent in research? << ANSWER/ COMMENT: No, there's no conflict between the two facts, since normal levels of IGF-1 in cow's milk vary by 500% depending on age of the cow, number of calves, time since pregnancy, and so on. An increase of 80% may well be lost in the noise, and in fact, it is. From a practical point of view, it ought to be obvious that this is true. Reason: *lots* of people would like to know if a cow or herd had been treated with growth hormone bST so they could reject the milk. If it was a matter of just testing the milk's IGF-1 levels to see if it had, it would be easy to do. You'd just test the milk, and if the IGF-1 level was high you'd act like the Olympic Committee and go and kick some butt. Unfortunately, that can't be done. It doesn't work. The E.U., for example, has banned bST, not for the health of humans, but due to arguments about the health of cows (and some ag politics as well). The E.U. would like to catch cheaters, but they can't do it by merely testing milk IGF-1 levels, because they are lost in the noise. Even with additional tests of the milk to try to correct for the time since pregnancy and age of the cow, they miss something like 40% to 70% of experimentally treated cows (I'll post an abstract showing their travails). So even knowing these correction factors for high IGF-1 levels, it can't be done. As I've pointed out before, however, no matter how high milk IGF levels are, they pale beside the normal levels in your blood and your gut secretions. Milk IGF-1 levels would be typically 3 ng/mL. However, normal human blood levels are around 200 ng/mL. If you must compare unbound hormone, IGF-1 concentrations run 0.9 nM in saliva (multiply by conversion factor of 7.69) which is 6.9 ng/mL --- above the mean of milk, though probably not beyond normal milk limits. Gastric juice and pancreatic juice (of which you make liters/day) run about 3.5 nM = 27 ng/mL which is well above what you find in anything but colostrum. The jejunal chyme which is enriched by IGF-1 secretion by small bowel cells has IGF-1 levels of 24.6 nM = 189 ng/mL, a level comparable to plasma levels, but all unbound hormone. This is more than 60 times the level found in milk. To worry about the stuff in milk when the levels in your own gut juices (whether you drink milk or not) are 60 times higher, is pretty nutty. Regul Pept. 1994 Feb 24;50(2):113-9. Insulin-like growth factor I in human gastrointestinal exocrine secretions. Chaurasia OP, Marcuard SP, Seidel ER. Department of Medicine, East Carolina University, School of Medicine, Greenville, NC 27858. Insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) is the mediator of growth hormone dependent growth. The peptide has been identified by radioimmunoassay in a number of human exocrine secretions of the gastrointestinal tract including (nM): saliva 0.9, gastric juice 3.5, jejunal chyme 24.6, pancreatic juice 3.6, and bile 0.9. The identification of IGF-I in pancreatic juice was confirmed by HPLC. The intravenous injection of 1 unit/kg secretin increased pancreatic juice IGF-I content from a basal level of roughly 4 nM to nearly 20 nM. Conversely, the IGF-I content of bile was unaffected by secretin. Radioligand blot analysis of samples of gastric juice, jejunal chyme and pancreatic juice demonstrated that these fluids contained no IGF binding proteins. Thus, unlike IGF-I in serum, IGF-I secreted into the gastrointestinal lumen is not bound to insulin-like growth factor I binding proteins. Since the growth factor is not protein bound, its concentration in the gut lumen may be high enough to exert biological activity. PMID: 8190912 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Analyst. 1998 Dec;123(12):2429-35. Increased milk levels of insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) for the identification of bovine somatotropin (bST) treated cows. Daxenberger A, Breier BH, Sauerwein H. Institute for Physiology, Research Centre for Milk and Food, Freising-Weihenstephan, Germany. The present EU moratorium banning the use of bST to increase milk yield implies the need for official controls. Our study aimed to identify milk from bST treated cows via the induced increase of insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) concentrations. A non-extraction radioimmunoassay for IGF-1 was improved and thoroughly validated for milk. Accuracy was 99% recovery in a fortified sample material, the precision was 5.1% intra-assay variation and 13.4% inter-assay variation. Parallelism was proved by a dilution experiment which yielded a regression line with a slope (-0.7%) not significantly different from zero (P = 0.534). Naturally occurring milk IGF-1 levels were recorded in 5777 random milk samples from the Bavarian dairy cow population. In samples from lactation week 7 to 33, the effect of somatic cell count (SCC), protein content and parity could be quantified and corrected; thus a normal distribution (-0.068 mean +/- 0.440 s) of the corrected logarithmic IGF-1 levels (corr ln IGF-1) was obtained. IGF-1 concentrations occurring in milk from bST treated cows were recorded in 33 Brown Swiss cows treated once with rbST (POSILAC). Mean corr in IGF-1 levels increased by 0.828 and 0.477 in first parity and older cows, respectively. Thus 60% and 29%, respectively, of the positives could be detected at a 95% probability. If our results are confirmed in experiments with more bST treated cows and with prolonged treatment intervals. IGF-1 measurements might be useful to monitor for bST application in milk samples. PMID: 10435273 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative,alt.health,sci.med.nutrition Subject: Re: milk & grocery cashier Date: 2 Jul 2005 20:35:16 -0700 Message-ID: <1120361716.867783.15060@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> >>Harris, of the 500,000 ng of IGF-1 found in the human body, all but approximately 2200 ng (level dependent on age) is bound to proteins and is therefore INACTIVE. << COMMENT: Really? Then you shouldn't worry that increased levels in your blood will give you cancer then, should you? It's all inactive. In any case, the IGF your gut makes, which levels I gave you, is all free and unbound. SBH From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative,alt.health,sci.med.nutrition Subject: Re: milk & strep throat Date: 2 Jul 2005 18:01:18 -0700 Message-ID: <1120352478.738158.222140@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> >>"banmilk", you make too much common medical sense about cow's milk & IGF-1 for anyone but a real health nut to accept. << COMMENT: IGF-1 is a normal hormone. You have more in your spit than there is milk. Do you swallow your spit, George? And far more in the rest of your gastric juices, something like 7 to 60 times more. There may actually be something in milk which causes IGF in the blood to rise, but it's certainly not the IGF-1 in milk--- there isn't enough of it. In any case there's no reason to think a variation of 10% in the blood means anything. You can get changes in IGF-1 this large from simple hormone replacement therapy in postmenopausal women (level goes LOWER) or an intensive exercise training program (level goes HIGHER). So what? SBH From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative,alt.health,sci.med.nutrition Subject: Re: milk & grocery cashier Date: 3 Jul 2005 16:22:39 -0700 Message-ID: <1120432959.869435.4620@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Steve Harris wrote: > >>Harris, of the 500,000 ng of IGF-1 found in the human body, all but > approximately 2200 ng (level dependent on age) is bound to proteins and > is therefore INACTIVE. << > > > COMMENT: > > Really? Then you shouldn't worry that increased levels in your blood > will give you cancer then, should you? It's all inactive. > >>Really!? Then how does a cut heal? COMMENT: Hey, you said it, not me. Quote your source, BTW. Did it take into account the IGF-1 in your gut juices? And what is the point, anyway? Associations of IGF-1 and cancer are epidemiological and therefore poor quality evidence. For all we know, IFG and cancer are caused by the same thing. In any case, the levels of IGF associated with increased cancer risk are levels like 100% over normal, not 10% over. Differences of 10% are noise. Thats the difference between one person from one day to the next, or the difference between a person who goes on a hard training program or not (in which case IGF increases--- so do we ban hard atheletic training with the idea that it should give people cancer?) SBH From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative,alt.health,sci.med.nutrition Subject: Re: milk & grocery cashier Date: 4 Jul 2005 12:45:07 -0700 Message-ID: <1120506307.335701.49160@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> >>No experienced practicing Doctor would defend dairy after many years of practice. He either has no experience with real people contact, or a hidden agenda. << COMMENT: Well, that neatly takes care of everybody, doesn't it? Since obviously there are a huge number of practising physicians (and nutritionists) recommending dairy foods as a good protein sourse for those who tolerate them, obviously they all must have some hidden agenda. Now it only remains to find it. *Everybody* who disagrees with *your* personal experience must have some hidden agenda, eh? But maybe it's only that they have different experiences, like a decade or two of actually practicing medicine? I'm really tired of having somebody who can't fly an airplane spouting off about what "real pilots" think. What makes you even close to knowing what you're talking about? You rode in an airplane a few times, maybe? There are cultures whose major fat source is whale blubber. Their health, from what we can tell, is not adversely affected. There are also whole cultures like the Masai who get along on milk as a major protein source, and the same is true. Nordic and Mongolian herder peoples thrive on animal milk as well. Why should anybody give up traditional and well-tolerated cultural foods merely because of YOUR unscientific predudices? If there was a good deal of evidence for the negative health effects of milk-drinking for those who tolerate it, that would be one thing. But there isn't, and I've looked at the epidemiological literature fairly closely on the point (feel free to point out things you think I've missed). Milk is simply one of those targets of food-ethnocentrism, much like coconut oil, whale blubber, and who knows what else. Once upon a time, before the French paradox hit, even wine was a target of the food Nazis. It's time we hauled all these food-bigotries out of the closet, in the light of better science, and said "enough is enough!" If strawberries give you hives, don't eat them! But many people like them and tolerate them, and for those people there's no good evidence that strawberries are a bad thing. In fact, the opposite. It's that way with many a food. Wise up. SBH From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative,alt.health,sci.med.nutrition Subject: Re: milk & grocery cashier Date: 5 Jul 2005 16:13:42 -0700 Message-ID: <1120605222.323353.91790@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Pizza Girl. wrote: > So you concur you have practiced medicine but have no patients? I think you > avoided the inference successfully enough that most know what to conclude. COMMENT: They'd be wrong. I've been licensed for more than 20 years, so of course I still have some patients. They tend to accumulate. But many fewer now than in past years, because I'm doing R&D full time. Occasionally I even see a new patient. I'm looking at a Thank You card from a woman I met for the first time in a 767 returning from Fiji when I was called on at 35,000 feet over the Pacific to see a very, very ill passenger. Gifts from a few grateful patients also help make my present position possible. I recommend the free market to all doctors. Go for it. For all the talk of doctors in the grip of large HMOs or drug companies or academia funded by business, I'm actually remarkably free. Naturally, you won't believe that. Too bad. SBH From: sbharris@ix.netcom.com Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative,alt.health,sci.med.nutrition Subject: Re: milk & grocery cashier Date: 5 Jul 2005 21:00:04 -0700 Message-ID: <1120622404.395740.73390@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> Harris >In any case, the levels of IGF associated with increased > cancer risk are levels like 100% over normal, not 10% over. Banmilk: >Do *you* have a source? COMMENT: Sure. There are something like 30 papers on this in the literature, and the meta-analysises only state that there's a significant prospective risk comparison of upper and lower "quartiles" of IGF-1 concentration. How much is this? Normal concentrations if IGF-1 defined by mean +/- 2 standard deviations (SD) are about 100 to 300 ng/mL, so quartiles are likely fairly far apart (certainly more than one SD). In the following abstract the actual values are given for IGF-1's in pre-diagnosis women who later developed breast cancer. The high and low quartile values here are 168 and 256 ng/mL respectively, and these differences were not quite significantly different, because the confidence interval for the odds ratio (0.91-2.8) included 1. Only in women younger than 50 did the OR not include 1, and that is why the paper notes that this is the only significant IGF-1 difference found. Note the numbers: 256 is 52% over 168. Whatever the significant IGF-1 difference between group is, in this cancer, it must be larger than that. Int J Cancer. 2000 Dec 1;88(5):828-32. Serum insulin-like growth factor-I and breast cancer. Toniolo P, Bruning PF, Akhmedkhanov A, Bonfrer JM, Koenig KL, Lukanova A, Shore RE, Zeleniuch-Jacquotte A. Division of Epidemiology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY 10016, USA. paolo.toniolo@med.nyu.edu Insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) is a systemic hormone with potent mitogenic and anti-apoptotic properties, which could influence the proliferative behavior of normal breast cells. Limited epidemiological observations suggest that the hormone may play a role in the etiology of breast cancer, especially at pre-menopausal ages. In a prospective case-control study nested within a cohort of New York City women, IGF-I, IGF-binding protein 3 (IGFBP-3) and C peptide were measured in frozen serum samples from 172 pre-menopausal and 115 post-menopausal subjects who were subsequently diagnosed with breast cancer. Subjects were eligible if diagnosed 6 months or more after recruitment into the study (7 to 120 months). Cohort members who matched the cases on age, menopausal status, date of blood sampling and day of menstrual cycle at blood collection served as controls. Post-menopausal breast cancer was not associated with serum IGF-I, IGFBP-3 or C-peptide levels. However, the risk of breast cancer increased with increasing serum concentrations of IGF-I in pre-menopausal women. The odds ratio (OR) for the highest quartile of IGF-I (>256 ng/ml) compared to the lowest (<168 ng/ml) was 1.60 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91-2. 81]. The OR decreased to 1.49 (95% CI 0.80-2.79) after adjustment for IGFBP-3. In analyses restricted to subjects who were pre-menopausal at the time of blood sampling and whose cancer was diagnosed before age 50, the top vs. bottom quartile OR increased appreciably to 2.30 (95% CI 1.07-4.94). Adjustment for IGFBP-3 reduced the OR to 1.90 (95% CI 0.82-4.42). There was no association between pre-menopausal breast cancer and IGFBP-3, IGF-I:IGFBP-3 ratio or non-fasting levels of C peptide. Elevated circulating levels of IGF-I may be an indicator of increased risk of breast cancer occurring before age 50. Copyright 2000 Wiley-Liss, Inc. PMID: 11072255 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] The second paper from the physician's health study looks at colon cancer, one of the cancers for which IGF-1 is most strongly associated with cancer (actually the ratio of IGF-1 to it's binding protein IFGFBG3 gives the best results, but that's slightly off topic). The entire paper can be seen at: http://jncicancerspectrum.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/jnci;91/7/620#TAB11 It's a NCI publication (ie, published by the US feds) so it isn't copyrighted. Here's a section: Table 2, A, shows associations of IGF-I and IGFBP-3 with risk of colorectal cancer after adjustment for age, cigarette smoking, BMI, and alcohol intake. Similar but slightly weaker associations were observed in models controlling only for age and smoking status. In separate models including only IGF-I or IGFBP-3, IGF-I was positively but not statistically significantly associated with risk of colorectal cancer, with no obvious trend. Similarly, only men in the highest quintile of IGFBP-3 had a statistically significantly lower risk (by 53%) than men in the lowest quintile. When IGF-I and IGFBP-3 were mutually adjusted in the same model to evaluate their independent effects, we found that IGF-I was positively and IGFBP-3 was inversely associated with risk of colorectal cancer, with statistically significant linear trends. An increase in IGF-I level of 100 ng/mL corresponded to a 69% increase in risk (RR = 1.69 per 100 ng/mL; 95% CI = 1.07-2.67). An increase in IGFBP-3 level of 1000 ng/mL corresponded to a 46% decrease in risk (RR = 0.54 per 1000 ng/mL; 95% CI = 0.34-0.84). Men with higher molar ratio of IGF-I to IGFBP-3 also had higher risk. The RRs for the highest four quintiles of the molar ratio compared with the lowest quintile were 0.93, 1.49, 1.38, and 1.67 (P for trend = .02). Plasma IGF-II levels, with or without adjustment for IGFBP-3, were not associated with risk. COMMENT: Note that after correction for many factors, the IGF-1 levels are not very different between cancer and non cancer groups, but the RAW numbers before correction are quite different. This suggests that much of the IGF difference between men who will and won't develop cancer is spurious markers behavior for age, smoking, degree of obesity, and alcohol intake (all of which influence IGF-1 greately, and correlate with cancer also). This study required a diffenence of 100 ng/mL of IGF-1 to increase cancer risk to 1.69, which must be about the point that it becomes significant, since again the 95% confidence limit for the lower OR is just slightly over 1 (1.07-2.67). So this is where the difference in risk for raw IGF-1 levels becomes significant--- 100 ng/mL. But is 66% over a mean normal value of 150 ng/mL. ============================== Finally, here's a prospective study if IGF-1 in men from the Physician's Health Study who later developed prostate cancer. Again note the wide confidence limites for the odds ratio between upper and lower quartile in IGF-1: 1.8 to 10.6). The lower limit close to 1 again means that we are not far away from differences in IFG-1 which are not significant insofar as risk. But in this study the men who in the upper quartile had IFG-1 levels of 300 to 500 ng/mL, and those in the lower quartile from 100 to 185. Thus, it took several times as much IGF to exceed a statistically significant increase in cancer risk, in this study. Science. 1998 Jan 23;279(5350):563-6. Comment in: Science. 1998 Jan 23;279(5350):475. Science. 1998 Oct 9;282(5387):199. Plasma insulin-like growth factor-I and prostate cancer risk: a prospective study. Chan JM, Stampfer MJ, Giovannucci E, Gann PH, Ma J, Wilkinson P, Hennekens CH, Pollak M. Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02115, USA. jmlchan@hsph.harvard.edu Insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I) is a mitogen for prostate epithelial cells. To investigate associations between plasma IGF levels and prostate cancer risk, a nested case-control study within the Physicians' Health Study was conducted on prospectively collected plasma from 152 cases and 152 controls. A strong positive association was observed between IGF-I levels and prostate cancer risk. Men in the highest quartile of IGF-I levels had a relative risk of 4.3 (95 percent confidence interval 1.8 to 10.6) compared with men in the lowest quartile. This association was independent of baseline prostate-specific antigen levels. Identification of plasma IGF-I as a predictor of prostate cancer risk may have implications for risk reduction and treatment. PMID: 9438850 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] FINAL COMMENT: So we have three studies of three different cancers, observed propectively. In one it took 52% increase IGF to correlate with a significant increase in cancer risk, in the second it took 66%, and in the third, something approximately 100%, but it's hard to say because the study had a lower RR confidence limit at 1.8 for an increase of 140 to 400 (about a factor of 2.8 or 280%), and we seek the increase which puts the lower confidence limit at exactly 1. All in all the answers turn out to be at least 50%, and for prostate cancer, probably much higher. I had estimated 100% in my reading, and perhaps that's too high for breast and colon cancer. But 10% increases surely put us under the limit for which an increase in risk for cancer can be demonstrated. SBH From: sbharris@ix.netcom.com Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative,alt.health,sci.med.nutrition Subject: Re: milk & grocery cashier Date: 5 Jul 2005 21:08:58 -0700 Message-ID: <1120622938.004031.92190@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> banmilk@hotmail.com wrote: > Steve Harris wrote: > > Steve Harris wrote: > > > >>Harris, of the 500,000 ng of IGF-1 found in the human body, all but > > > approximately 2200 ng (level dependent on age) is bound to proteins and > > > > > is therefore INACTIVE. << > > > > > > > COMMENT: > > > > > Really? Then you shouldn't worry that increased levels in your blood > > > will give you cancer then, should you? It's all inactive. > > > > >>Really!? Then how does a cut heal? COMMENT: Again, you're the one that said most of it is inactive. As for how a cut heals, it's complicated. I don't think anybody has yet proven IGF-1 is totally necessary, though it does speed up healing. There are mice with over 75% of their IGF-1 production genetically knocked out, and I can't find any evidence that they don't heal. > For all we know, IFG and cancer are caused by the > > same thing. > > Those are the words of an idiot not a doctor of medicine. Those are the words of somebody whose mind is not made up. In acromegalics with GREATLY increased GH levesl and IGF-1 levels, the only cancer I know of that is increased is colon cancer. And that not greatly. Why aren't all cancers increased VASTLY if the IFG-1 levels of these people are increased vastly? Eh? I leave it for you to ponder. > In any case, the levels of IGF associated with increased > > cancer risk are levels like 100% over normal, not 10% over. > > Do *you* have a source? > Dr. Tritsch observed that as little as 10 ng of IGF-1 removed from > cancer cells caused them to stop proliferating. COMMENT: A meaningless statment. The reference? 10 ng removed from each mL of fluid in the dish? From each cell? From what? What kind of cancer cells. Do you think behavior of cancer cells in a dish is a good index for how they behave in animals and people (if so you don't know beans about cancer cells. Or cell culture either). > Now, what independent science project determined that human IGF-1 > levels have to be 100% over normal before the hormone is able to > instruct cellular growth? COMMENT: In an adult human or a dish? Can you tell the difference? One is small and made of plastic. The other is bigger and looks very different. I would suggest looking in the mirror, but in this case, it wouldn't help. SBH From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative,sci.med.nutrition,sci.med Subject: MILK and CANCER (Re: got milk?) Date: 13 Jul 2005 21:10:37 -0700 Message-ID: <1121314237.439850.230140@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> banmilk@hotmail.com wrote: > GOT MILK? GOT CANCER? COMMENT: The only association between cancer and milk consumption in the literature is for prostate cancer, and it's small. It's also confusing, as skim milk seems more dangerous than whole milk. For ovarian cancer, summary of studies shows no association between milk consumption and cancer. For both breast and colo-rectal cancer, milk consumption correlates oppositely to cancer risk. Obviously if milk consumption were a major cause of colon and breast cancer, these statistics would not be possible, for the bad effect would show up clearly. A mild association between cigarettes and lung cancer, if it existed by itself, would not be enough to show cigarettes cause lung cancer. However, it would be hard to argue that cigarettes caused lung cancer if the more people smoked, the less likely they were to get lung cancer! Lack of correlation in epidemiology is more important than correlation. DAIRY and OVARIAN CANCER: No ASSOCIATION Eur J Cancer Prev. 2005 Feb;14(1):13-9. Milk/dairy products consumption, galactose metabolism and ovarian cancer: meta-analysis of epidemiological studies. Qin LQ, Xu JY, Wang PY, Hashi A, Hoshi K, Sato A. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, University of Yamanashi, Tamaho, Shimokato 1110, Yamanashi 409-3898, Japan. shinr@res.yamanashi-med.ac.jp Ovarian cancer is the fifth most common cause of cancer death among women and the leading cause of gynaecological cancer death in the United States. Milk/dairy products consumption was considered to be a risk factor for ovarian cancer mainly because milk carbohydrate-lactose and galactose metabolism is toxic to oocytes. However, recent evidence does not support this hypothesis completely. We collected epidemiological studies related to the association between milk/dairy products consumption or galactose metabolism (lactose, galactose, galactose-1-phosphate uridyltransferase, lactose/transferase) and ovarian cancer published between January 1966 and August 2003 and found 27 items from 22 independent studies. Twenty studies were case-control studies and the other two were cohort studies. A meta-analysis method was conducted to estimate relative risk combining all relative data. In general, we did not find any association between milk/dairy products or galactose metabolism and ovarian cancer risk in this meta-analysis. The consumption of whole milk and butter, which contain relatively high amounts of fat, was positively (relative risk > 1.2), but not significantly, associated with an increased risk. Publication Types: Meta-Analysis PMID: 15677891 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] MILK and BREAST CANCER: PROTECTIVE EFFECT? Int J Epidemiol. 2002 Feb;31(1):78-85. Comment in: Int J Epidemiol. 2002 Feb;31(1):86-7. Meat and dairy food consumption and breast cancer: a pooled analysis of cohort studies. Missmer SA, Smith-Warner SA, Spiegelman D, Yaun SS, Adami HO, Beeson WL, van den Brandt PA, Fraser GE, Freudenheim JL, Goldbohm RA, Graham S, Kushi LH, Miller AB, Potter JD, Rohan TE, Speizer FE, Toniolo P, Willett WC, Wolk A, Zeleniuch-Jacquotte A, Hunter DJ. Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA 02115-6096, USA. stacey.missmer@channing.harvard.edu BACKGROUND: More than 20 studies have investigated the relation between meat and dairy food consumption and breast cancer risk with conflicting results. Our objective was to evaluate the risk of breast cancer associated with meat and dairy food consumption and to assess whether non-dietary risk factors modify the relation. METHODS: We combined the primary data from eight prospective cohort studies from North America and Western Europe with at least 200 incident breast cancer cases, assessment of usual food and nutrient intakes, and a validation study of the dietary assessment instrument. The pooled database included 351,041 women, 7379 of whom were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer during up to 15 years of follow-up. RESULTS: We found no significant association between intakes of total meat, red meat, white meat, total dairy fluids, or total dairy solids and breast cancer risk. Categorical analyses suggested a J-shaped association for egg consumption where, compared to women who did not eat eggs, breast cancer risk was slightly decreased among women who consumed < 2 eggs per week but slightly increased among women who consumed > or = 1 egg per day. CONCLUSIONS: We found no significant associations between intake of meat or dairy products and risk of breast cancer. An inconsistent relation between egg consumption and risk of breast cancer merits further investigation. Publication Types: Meta-Analysis PMID: 11914299 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] MILK AND COLORECTAL CANCER-- PROTECTIVE EFFECT? Int J Cancer. 2005 May 4; [Epub ahead of print] Dietary calcium, phosphorus, vitamin D, dairy products and the risk of colorectal adenoma and cancer among French women of the E3N-EPIC prospective study. Kesse E, Boutron-Ruault MC, Norat T, Riboli E, Clavel-Chapelon F. INSERM, Equipe E3N-EPIC, Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif Cedex, France. A protective effect of calcium and/or dairy products on colorectal cancer has been reported in epidemiological studies but the findings are considered inconsistent. In particular, it is unclear whether they act at a particular step of the adenoma-carcinoma sequence. To investigate the effect of dairy product consumption and dietary calcium, vitamin D and phosphorus intake on the adenoma-carcinoma sequence in the French E3N-EPIC prospective study. The population for the study of risk factors for adenomas was composed of 516 adenoma cases, including 175 high-risk adenomas, and of 4,804 polyp-free subjects confirmed by colonoscopy. The population for the colorectal cancer study was composed of 172 cases and 67,312 cancer-free subjects. Diet was assessed using a self-administered questionnaire completed at baseline. There was a trend of decreasing risk of both adenoma (p(trend)= 0.04) and cancer (p(trend)=0.08) with increasing calcium intake, with RRs for adenoma and cancer of 0.80 (IC 95%=0.62-1.03) and 0.72 (95% CI=0.47-1.10), respectively, in the fourth quartile compared to the first. A protective effect of dairy products on adenoma (RR(Q4 vs. Q1)= 0.80, 95% CI=0.62-1.05, p(trend)= 0.04) was observed and of milk consumption on colorectal cancer (RR(Q4vs. Q1)= 0.54, 95% CI=0.33-0.89, p(trend)= 0.09), although the latter did not reach significance. Phosphorus intake also decreased the risk of adenoma (RR(Q4 vs. Q1)=0.70, 95% CI=0.54-0.90, p(trend)= 0.005). No vitamin D effect was identified. Our data support the hypothesis that calcium, dairy products and phosphorus exert a protective effect at certain steps of the adenoma-carcinoma sequence. (c) 2005 Wiley-Liss, Inc. PMID: 15880532 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher] MILK and COLORECTAL CANCER METAANALYSIS 5000 CASES: PROTECTIVE EFFECT? J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004 Jul 7;96(13):1015-22. Erratum in: J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004 Nov 17;96(22):1724. Dairy foods, calcium, and colorectal cancer: a pooled analysis of 10 cohort studies. Cho E, Smith-Warner SA, Spiegelman D, Beeson WL, van den Brandt PA, Colditz GA, Folsom AR, Fraser GE, Freudenheim JL, Giovannucci E, Goldbohm RA, Graham S, Miller AB, Pietinen P, Potter JD, Rohan TE, Terry P, Toniolo P, Virtanen MJ, Willett WC, Wolk A, Wu K, Yaun SS, Zeleniuch-Jacquotte A, Hunter DJ. Channing Laboratory, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA. eunyoung.cho@channing.harvard.edu BACKGROUND: Studies in animals have suggested that calcium may reduce the risk of colorectal cancer. However, results from epidemiologic studies of intake of calcium or dairy foods and colorectal cancer risk have been inconclusive. METHODS: We pooled the primary data from 10 cohort studies in five countries that assessed usual dietary intake by using a validated food frequency questionnaire at baseline. For most studies, follow-up was extended beyond that in the original publication. The studies included 534 536 individuals, among whom 4992 incident cases of colorectal cancer were diagnosed between 6 and 16 years of follow-up. Pooled multivariable relative risks for categories of milk intake and quintiles of calcium intake and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Milk intake was related to a reduced risk of colorectal cancer. Compared with the lowest category of intake (<70 g/day), relative risks of colorectal cancer for increasing categories (70-174, 175-249, and > or =250 g/day) of milk intake were 0.94 (95% CI = 0.86 to 1.02), 0.88 (95% CI = 0.81 to 0.96), and 0.85 (95% CI = 0.78 to 0.94), respectively (P(trend)<.001). Calcium intake was also inversely related to the risk of colorectal cancer. The relative risk for the highest versus the lowest quintile of intake was 0.86 (95% CI = 0.78 to 0.95; P(trend) =.02) for dietary calcium and 0.78 (95% CI = 0.69 to 0.88; P(trend)<.001) for total calcium (combining dietary and supplemental sources). These results were consistent across studies and sex. The inverse association for milk was limited to cancers of the distal colon (P(trend)<.001) and rectum (P(trend) =.02). CONCLUSION: Higher consumption of milk and calcium is associated with a lower risk of colorectal cancer. Publication Types: Meta-Analysis PMID: 15240785 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] MILK AND PROSTATE CANCER: A POSITIVE CORRELATION: HARMFUL EFFECT? 1: Nutr Cancer. 2004;48(1):22-7. Milk consumption is a risk factor for prostate cancer: meta-analysis of case-control studies. Qin LQ, Xu JY, Wang PY, Kaneko T, Hoshi K, Sato A. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, University of Yamanashi, Shimokato, Japan. shinr@res.yamanashi-med.ac.jp Prostate cancer has become the most common cancer among men in the United States. Although milk consumption is considered to be a risk factor in some epidemiological studies, the results are inconsistent. A meta-analysis method was conducted to estimate the combined odds ratio (OR) between milk consumption and prostate cancer from case-control studies published between 1984 and 2003 using commercial software (comprehensive meta-analysis). The combined OR was 1.68 (95% confidence interval = 1.34-2.12) in the 11 published case-control studies. The combined OR varied little by study stratification. Additionally, we evaluated the possible risk factors in milk for prostate cancer. In conclusion, we found a positive association between milk consumption and prostate cancer. The underlying mechanisms, including fat, calcium, hormones, and other factors, should be investigated further. Copyright 2004 Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Publication Types: Meta-Analysis PMID: 15203374 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] WHAT COMPONENT OF MILK? 2: Am J Clin Nutr. 2005 May;81(5):1147-54. Dairy, calcium, and vitamin D intakes and prostate cancer risk in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Epidemiologic Follow-up Study cohort. Tseng M, Breslow RA, Graubard BI, Ziegler RG. Division of Population Science, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA 19111, USA. m_tseng@fccc.edu BACKGROUND: Dairy intake may increase prostate cancer risk, but whether this is due to calcium's suppression of circulating vitamin D remains unclear. Findings on calcium and vitamin D intake and prostate cancer are inconsistent. OBJECTIVE: We examined the association of dairy, calcium, and vitamin D intake with prostate cancer. DESIGN: In a prospective study of 3612 men followed from 1982-1984 to 1992 for the first National Health and Nutrition Examination Epidemiologic Follow-up Study, 131 prostate cancer cases were identified. Dietary intake was estimated from questionnaires completed in 1982-1984. Relative risk (RR) and 95% CIs were estimated by using Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for age, race, and other covariates. RESULTS: Compared with men in the lowest tertile for dairy food intake, men in the highest tertile had a relative risk (RR) of 2.2 (95% CI: 1.2, 3.9; trend P = 0.05). Low-fat milk was associated with increased risk (RR = 1.5; 95% CI: 1.1, 2.2; third compared with first tertile; trend P = 0.02), but whole milk was not (RR = 0.8; 95% CI: 0.5, 1.3; third compared with first tertile; trend P = 0.35). Dietary calcium was also strongly associated with increased risk (RR = 2.2; 95% CI: 1.4, 3.5; third compared with first tertile; trend P = 0.001). After adjustment for calcium intake, neither vitamin D nor phosphorus was clearly associated with risk. CONCLUSIONS: Dairy consumption may increase prostate cancer risk through a calcium-related pathway. Calcium and low-fat milk have been promoted to reduce risk of osteoporosis and colon cancer. Therefore, the mechanisms by which dairy and calcium might increase prostate cancer risk should be clarified and confirmed. PMID: 15883441 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] SBH From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition,alt.health,misc.health.alternative Subject: Re: milk & disease Date: 13 Jul 2005 16:01:07 -0700 Message-ID: <1121295667.095076.22050@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> George Lagergren wrote: > Who knows. Maybe dairy (& cows' milk) products and iron > overload is the cause of many health problems. COMMENT: And maybe not. It would certainly have to be separate problems, since one of the few things greatly lacking in cows milk is iron. From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition Subject: Re: Can MDs Dispense....And Should They? Date: 15 Jul 2005 12:29:12 -0700 Message-ID: <1121455752.647090.229570@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> George Lagergren wrote: > Many humans can NOT digest the heavy, thick casein protein > contained within cows' milk. Such folks suffer real health problems like > ear infections, strep throats, asthma, lung congestion, sinus problems, > hayfever problems, etc. COMMENT: Actually, what milk intolerant people do is pass gas a lot. But even Asians can generally tolerate up to a cup of milk at a time without too many problems. Milk intolerage is almost entirely due to lactose intolerance. As has been noted, casein is tolerated by just about everyone. Look at your average energy bar label. It's going to have casein. If energy bars gave atheletes and others ear infections, strep throats, asthma, lung congestion, sinus problems, hayfever problems, and so on, don't you think they'd have noticed by now? SBH |