Dairy for Children Extends Life
Dragonblaze
Children who eat plenty of dairy foods such as milk and cheese can
expect to live longer, a study suggests.
Some 4,374 UK children from a 1930s study were traced 65 years later
by researchers in Bristol and Queensland.
They found those who had had high dairy and calcium intakes as
children had been protected against stroke and other causes of death,
journal Heart reports.
Despite dairy containing artery furring fat and cholesterol, high
consumption did not raise the heart disease risk.
Read the whole article here:
crisology
> Dairy for children 'extends life'
>
> Children who eat plenty of dairy foods such as milk and cheese can
> expect to live longer, a study suggests.
As opposed to coke and meat? Fruit and vegetables?
> Read the whole article here:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8170002.stm
Yes, read the whole popular press article carefully...
"Joanne Murphy of The Stroke Association said: "but we need to take a
further look to really assess the benefits of milk in reducing the
chances of dying from stroke.
"In the meantime, we advise parents to opt for a diet rich in fruit
and vegetables and low in saturated fat and salt for the overall
health of their children."
... Next, look for the news in a scientific database to see if
independent variables were described (among other things) in the
original abstract...
"Replication in other study populations is needed to determine whether
residual confounding explains part of these findings."
Heart. 2009 Jul 29. [Epub ahead of print]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19643770?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
So, length of breastfeeding, followed by plenty of salad from rich
soil, among those who were not calcium deficient may be healthier than
average children's diet in England?
Going beyond the abstract, a summary of key findings with more
confidence are reported for the original study...
International Journal of Epidemiology 2005 34(4):742-749. Cohort
Profile: The Boyd Orr cohort—an historical cohort study based on the
65 year follow-up of the Carnegie Survey of Diet and Health (1937–39)
"What has it found? Key findings and key publications:
A unique feature of the Boyd Orr cohort is the detailed record of
family diet in childhood on all cohort members. Analysis of these
records has shown, for the first time in humans, that high levels of
energy intake are associated with increased cancer risk in later life.
20 Furthermore, children whose family diets were rich in fruits have a
reduced cancer risk.21 There are no strong associations of family diet
with adult cardiovascular disease.22 The main limitation of the
findings in relation to diet is that family diet, rather than
individual diet, was measured. Whilst the household diet of family
members in the 1930s was likely to be more similar than today, the
aggregate family diet measures are not ideal for studying diet–disease
associations.
'high levels of energy intake"?
Childhood energy intake and adult mortality from cancer: the boyd orr
cohort study
Key messages
Animal studies have shown that energy restriction results in a reduced
risk of cancer. Some cancers are more common in taller people,
suggesting that the same effect may be important in humans
A positive association emerged between childhood energy intake and
later cancer (other than cancer related to smoking), once adjustment
for socioeconomic variables had been made
This evidence for long term effects of early diet confirms the
importance of optimal childhood nutrition by implying that higher
levels of energy intake in childhood increase the risk of the later
development of cancer.
BMJ 1998;316:499-504 (14 February)
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/316/7130/499?ijkey=1499082f1ab0e3e8831995fddf1cec8114cef5b5&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
I'm curious about affects of 'high energy intake' for chidren now,the
thrust of the original study..
Adv Exp Med Biol. 1999;472:29-42. Nutritional factors in human
cancers. ..malignancies are largely influenced by a combination of
factors related to diet and nutrition. Their causes are multifactorial
and complex, but a major influence is the widespread availability of
energy-dense, highly processed and refined foods that are also deplete
in fiber. These dietary patterns in combination with physical
inactivity contribute to obesity and metabolic consequences such as
increased levels of IGF-1, insulin, estrogen, and possibly
testosterone. These hormones tend to promote cellular growth. For
prostate cancer, epidemiologic studies consistently show a positive
association with high consumption of milk, dairy products, and meats.
Chris
arc...@scfas.com
conclusion, please clarify. Just explain if you please, if I want to
consult it again I will read it again.
CONCLUSIONS: Children whose family diet in the 1930s was high in calcium
were at reduced risk of death from stroke. Furthermore, childhood diets
rich in dairy or calcium were associated with lower all-cause mortality
in adulthood. Replication in other study populations is needed to
crisology
That's the delimitation provided by the investigators, right after the
conclusion statement. Heart. 2009 Jul 29. [Epub ahead of print]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19643770?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
The population was low income families in England and calcium from
natural sources may not have been as well marketed or as easily
obtained as cow milk within that culture. Additionally, the popular
press title touts benefits of dairy (rather than calcium).
International Journal of Epidemiology 2005 34(4):742-749
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/34/4/742?ijkey=KFbuqTQSzsSDezz&keytype=ref
Chris
arc...@scfas.com
calcium
> were at reduced risk of death from stroke. Furthermore, childhood
diets
> rich in dairy or calcium were associated with lower all-cause
mortality
> in adulthood. Replication in other study populations is needed to
> determine whether residual confounding explains part of these
findings.
> determine whether residual confounding explains part of these
findings.
"That's the delimitation provided by the investigators, right after the
conclusion statement. Heart. 2009 Jul 29. [Epub ahead of print]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19643770?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PE
ntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum"
Also the mark of a honest scholar noting that their conclusions don't
exclude other cofactors at work. It does not negate their results. If
one wishes to do so one must show the correlation either does not exist
after all or its interpretation is not related to the question asked.
"The population was low income families in England and calcium from
natural sources may not have been as well marketed or as easily obtained
as cow milk within that culture. Additionally, the popular press title
touts benefits of dairy (rather than calcium)."
One can speculate about any manner of possible context factors but they
must be demonstrated to be other then "just so stories". Self serving
appeals to "natural" aiding not at all.
Nor does evoking the politics of food help us at all, a sword that cuts
both ways and meaningless scientifically.
crisology
>> CONCLUSIONS: Children whose family diet in the 1930s was high in calcium
>> were at reduced risk of death from stroke. Furthermore, childhood diets
>> rich in dairy or calcium were associated with lower all-cause mortality
>> in adulthood. Replication in other study populations is needed to
>> determine whether residual confounding explains part of these findings.
> I'm notclear what the meaning of your added material was to this
conclusion
It wasn't my added material, it was the material of the author of the
abstract. And what I posted was quoted from the abstract not just 'to
this conclusion' but also in contrast to the popular press headline
(as I mentioned). I also went on to explain the context and 'key
findings' of the original study to contrast with the popular press
article headline.
"children whose family diets were rich in fruits have a
reduced cancer risk" etc. International Journal of Epidemiology 2005 34
(4):742-749. Cohort
Profile: The Boyd Orr cohort—an historical cohort study based on the
65 year follow-up of the Carnegie Survey of Diet and Health (1937–39)
> "That's the delimitation provided by the investigators, right after the
> conclusion statement. Heart. 2009 Jul 29. [Epub ahead of print]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19643770?ordinalpos=1&itool=Entrez...
>
> ntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum"
>
> It does not negate their results.
It was not for the purpose of trying to 'negate their results' that I
informed you of the demographics of the children being studied, which
was not mentioned in the popular press article and abstract.
> One can speculate about any manner of possible context factors
Or just read the cohort profile.
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/34/4/742?ijkey=KFbuqTQSzsSDezz&keytype=ref
> appeals to "natural" aiding not at all.
Natural food does aid digestion and health. I've provided a working
definition for 'natural food' as biochemically compatible food,
previously. For instance, some features of a natural human diet are
that it is alkalizing or without requirement of medication/treatment/
vague or imaginary balancing acts/social acquisition, etc. Another
example of natural/biochemically compatible food for humans is breast
milk.
Not all research published in popular press articles is good science
so it is helpful to go beyond the headlines of rogue, popular press
articles. Yet even the popular press article cautioned against
saturated fat, favoring instead the fruit based diet overall.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8170002.stm
Chris
Jerry
the study, we can't evaluate whether the study supports their
conclusions. For all we know, maybe there was no study.
One thing we know for sure is that there are studies that we have
details of that contradict the conclusions in the article.
It is common for studies that test whether something is good or bad
for health to be dishonest. For example, msg, aspartame, fluoride,
mercury, tobacco, vitamins, drugs. The general idea is to fudge the
study so supports a conclusion that increases sales of their product.
It is said that the peer review process is self-correcting. If the
conclusion is not the one they want, they do more studies or fudge the
studies until the studies support a conclusion that promotes the
product. This is how the peer review process is self-correcting. For
example, it is said that aspartame is the most tested substance ever.
They had a helluva time fudging the aspartame studies enough so they
would come out right.
arc...@scfas.com
>
> Children who eat plenty of dairy foods such as milk and cheese can
> expect to live longer, a study suggests.
>
> Some 4,374 UK children from a 1930s study were traced 65 years later
> by researchers in Bristol and Queensland.
>
> They found those who had had high dairy and calcium intakes as
> children had been protected against stroke and other causes of death,
> journal Heart reports.
>
> Despite dairy containing artery furring fat and cholesterol, high
> consumption did not raise the heart disease risk.
>
> Read the whole article here:
>
"> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8170002.stm "The article does not
show the actual study. Not having the details of the study, we can't
evaluate whether the study supports their" conclusions. For all we know,
maybe there was no study."
So you draw your views from a place of ignorance? The bit beginning
this post is from the journal abstract, the study does exist.
"One thing we know for sure is that there are studies that we have
details of that contradict the conclusions in the article."
Happy to review them if you please.
"It is common for studies that test whether something is good or bad for
health to be dishonest. For example, msg, aspartame, fluoride, mercury,
tobacco, vitamins, drugs. The general idea is to fudge the study so
supports a conclusion that increases sales of their product.
It is said that the peer review process is self-correcting. If the
conclusion is not the one they want, they do more studies or fudge the
studies until the studies support a conclusion that promotes the
product. This is how the peer review process is self-correcting. For
example, it is said that aspartame is the most tested substance ever.
They had a helluva time fudging the aspartame studies enough so they
would come out right."
So you claim other studies in support of your conclusion from ignorance
and then damn such studies in the next breath?
Jerry
> So you claim other studies in support of your conclusion from ignorance
> and then damn such studies in the next breath?
(or seem to show) that aspartame is safe. Then there are studies that
show (or seem to show) the opposite. How do you separate the true and
the false? Answer: details. It becomes obvious that the pro-aspartame
studies are dishonest.
arc...@scfas.com
Let us make a wild guess here, aspartame ain't your sweetner of choice?
Dairy seems to be the topic here.
In many areas of biology there are differences in results which have
nothing to do with nor suggest bias from outside sources. This is a
part of normal science.
Many questions are too large for one or a few studies to be conclusive.
Over time different studies take a different bite out of the apple
coming at the question from different angles. In time a concensus forms
as enough studies are done to account for variation in results.
Jerry
Check out:
1. Dr. McDougall
2. Foods That Kill Healthy Eating
Or, find them on my jts-sn blog:
http://jts-sn.blogspot.com/
Some interesting ideas:
* Calcium deficiency in the body is not caused by calcium deficiency
in the diet. (If you can prove otherwise, Dr. McDougall wants to see
the evidence so he can win a prize.)
* Milk is not a good source of calcium, in spite of the fact that it
contains much calcium. This is because milk takes calcium out of the
body.
* You can get by with a small amount of calcium in your diet, provided
you avoid stuff that takes calcium out.
* There is nothing in animal-source food that you can't get from vegan
sources. (So it is said.)
* Animal source protein is higher in sulfur than is vegan source
protein. Therefore animal source protein makes more acid. The acid
takes minerals out of the body.
* You don't want any fatty acids in your blood that are solid at body
temperature.
* All carnivorous animals (tigers, etc.) have enzyme uricase. This
helps to convert uric acid (a byproduct of protein) to urea, which is
eliminated via kidneys. Humans lack this enzyme and therefore must
convert uric acid without it. Carnivorous animals also have larger
kidneys (for their body size) than humans have. These facts tend to
suggest that humans are not as well adapted to a high protein diet as
carnivorous animals are.
* Carnivorous animals digest meat roughly as quickly as we digest
fruit. They have larger stomachs (for their body size), where protein
is digested. They also have more concentration of stomach acid, to
better digest protein. Again, we seem to be less well adapted to a
high protein diet than carnivorous animals are.
* Teeth. It is true that humans have canine teeth. So do horses and
some deer. The canine teeth of humans are laughable compared with the
canine teeth of a tiger. Chimps have canine teeth better developed
than ours, but their diet in the wild is something like 60% fruit, 25%
leaves, 15% misc. (blossoms, bark, insects, bird's eggs, maybe a small
amount of meat). Their diet is not to any great degree carnivorous, in
spite of their teeth being more carnivorous than ours.
* Eyes. Some people say that the fact that both of our 2 eyes point in
the same direction proves that we are carnivorous. Carnivorous animals
such as cats, dogs have eyes that point in the same direction (to go
after prey). Vegan animals such as rabbits have eyes that point in
different directions (to escape from predators). So we are supposed to
be predators. But monkeys that eat little else than fruits have eyes
that point in the same direction. That seems to spoil the theory.
* For more strange ideas, view the videos.
In spite of all of the above and more, I've been eating yogurt and
sardines. Very bad stuff. There are horror stories about what happens
to people when they go strictly vegan. And besides, everybody has to
have some vices. With some people it's smoking or alcohol or drugs or
gambling. With me it was yogurt and sardines. Why sardines? Because
they are lower on the food chain than the other fish and therefore
have less mercury and all that stuff, and besides they taste better
than the other fish.
Recently I decided to drop the yogurt and the sardines and go vegan.
Long story. It started with the disappearance of a tumor.
arc...@scfas.com
The original topic is in the subject line.