Index
Home
About
Blog
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
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
Index
Home
About
Blog