[Living Raw And Free] The Milk Letter- Part 3

[Rawman Walking]

The Milk Letter -Part 3

THE MILK LETTER : A MESSAGE TO MY PATIENTS

Robert M. Kradjian, MD Breast Surgery Chief Division of General Surgery

OTHER CANCERS--DOES IT GET WORSE?


Unfortunately it does. Ovarian cancer--a particularly nasty tumour--was associated with milk consumption by workers at Roswell Park Memorial Institute in Buffalo, New York.Drinking more than one glass of whole milk or equivalent daily gave a woman a 3.1 times risk over non-milk users.They felt that the reduced fat milk products helped reduce the risk. This association has been made repeatedly by numerous investigators. Another important study, this from the Harvard MedicalSchool, analyzed data from 27 countries mainly from the1970s.


Again a significant positive correlation is revealed between ovarian cancer and per capita milk consumption. These investigators feel that the lactose component of milk is the responsible fraction, and the digestion of this is facilitated by the persistence of the ability to digest thelactose (lactose persistence) - a little different emphasis,but the same conclusion. This study was reported in the American Journal of Epidemiology 130 (5): 904-10 Nov. 1989.These articles come from two of the country's leading institutions, not the Rodale Press or Prevention Magazine. Even lung cancer has been associated with milk ingestion? The beverage habits of 569 lung cancer patients and 569 controls again at Roswell Park were studied in the International Journal of Cancer, April 15, 1989. Persons drinking whole milk 3 or more times daily had a 2-foldincrease in lung cancer risk when compared to those never drinking whole milk. For many years we have been watching the lung cancer ratesfor Japanese men who smoke far more than American orEuropean men but who develop fewer lung cancers. Workers in this research area feel that the total fat intake is the difference.There are not many reports studying an association between milk ingestion and prostate cancer. One such report though was of great interest. This is from the Roswell ParkMemorial Institute and is found in Cancer 64 (3): 605-12,1989. They analyzed the diets of 371 prostate cancer patients and comparable control subjects: Men who reported drinking three or more glasses of whole milk daily had a relative risk of 2.49 compared with men whoreported never drinking whole milk the weight of theevidence appears to favour the hypothesis that animal fat isrelated to increased risk of prostate cancer. Prostate cancer is now the most common cancer diagnosed in US men and is the second leading cause of cancer mortality.


WELL, WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS?
Is there any health reason at all for an adult human to drink cows' milk?It's hard for me to come up with even one good reason other than simple preference. But if you try hard, in my opinion,these would be the best two: milk is a source of calcium and it's a source of amino acids (proteins). Let's look at the calcium first. Why are we concerned at all about calcium? Obviously, we intend it to build strong bones and protect us against osteoporosis. And no doubt about it, milk is loaded with calcium. But is it a good calcium source for humans? I think not. These are the reasons. Excessive amounts of dairy products actually interfere with calcium absorption. Secondly, the excess of protein that the milk provides is a major cause of the osteoporosis problem. Dr. Hegsted in England has been writing for years about thegeographical distribution of osteoporosis. It seems that the countries with the highest intake of dairy products are invariably the countries with the most osteoporosis. He feels that milk is a cause of osteoporosis. Reasons to begiven below.Numerous studies have shown that the level of calciumingestion and especially calcium supplementation has no effect whatever on the development of osteoporosis. The mosti mportant such article appeared recently in the BritishJournal of Medicine where the long arm of our dairy industry can't reach. Another study in the United States actually showed a worsening in calcium balance in post-menopausal women given three 8-ounce glasses of cows' milk per day.(Am. Journal of Clin. Nutrition, 1985). The effects of hormone, gender, weight bearing on the axial bones, and inparticular protein intake, are critically important. Another observation that may be helpful to our analysis is to note the absence of any recorded dietary deficiencies of calcium among people living on a natural diet without milk.For the key to the osteoporosis riddle, donÂ’t look atc alcium, look at protein. Consider these two contrasting groups. Eskimos have an exceptionally high protein intake estimated at 25 percent of total calories. They also have a high calcium intake at 2,500 mg/day. Their osteoporosis is among the worst in the world. The other instructive group are the Bantus of South Africa. They have a 12 percent protein diet, mostly p lant protein, and only 200 to 350mg/day of calcium, about half our women's intake. The women have virtually no osteoporosis despite bearing six or more children and nursing them for prolonged periods! When African women immigrate to the United States, do they develop osteoporosis? The answer is yes, but not quite are much as Caucasian or Asian women. Thus, there is a genetic difference that is modified by diet.To answer the obvious question, "Well, where do you get your calcium?" The answer is: "From exactly the same place the cow gets the calcium, from green things that grow in theground," mainly from leafy vegetables. After all, elephants and rhinos develop their huge bones (after being weaned) by eating green leafy plants, so do horses. Carnivorous animals also do quite nicely without leafy plants. It seems that allof earth's mammals do well if they live in harmony withtheir genetic programming and natural food. Only humansliving an affluent life style have rampant osteoporosis.If animal references do not convince you, think of the several billion humans on this earth who have never seen cows' milk. Wouldn't you think osteoporosis would be prevalent in this huge group? The dairy people would suggest this but the truth is exactly the opposite. They have farless than that seen in the countries where dairy products are commonly consumed. It is the subject of another paper,but the truly significant determinants of osteoporosis are grossly excessive protein intakes and lack of weight bearing on long bones, both taking place over decades. Hormones play a secondary, but not trivial role in women. Milk is adeterrent to good bone health.


THE PROTEIN MYTH
Remember when you were a kid and the adults all told you to"make sure you get plenty of good protein". Protein was thenutritional "good guy”" when I was young. And of coursemilk is fitted right in.As regards protein, milk is indeed a rich source of protein--"liquid meat," remember? However that isn't necessarily what we need. In actual fact it is a source of difficulty. Nearly all Americans eat too much protein. For this information we rely on the most authoritative source that I am aware of. This is the latest edition (1oth,1989: 4th printing, Jan. 1992) of the Recommended Dietary Allowances produced by the National Research Council.


Of interest, the current editor of this important work is Dr.Richard Havel of the University of California in SanFrancisco. First to be noted is that the recommended protein has been steadily revised downward in successive editions. The current recommendation is 0.75 g/kilo/day for adults 19through 51 years. This, of course, is only 45 grams per dayfor the mythical 60 kilogram adult. You should also know that the WHO estimated the need for protein in adults to by.6g/kilo per day. (All RDA's are calculated with large safety allowances in case you're the type that wants to add some more to "be sure.") You can "get by" on 28 to 30 grams a day if necessary! Now 45 grams a day is a tiny amount of protein. That's anounce and a half! Consider too, that the protein does not have to be animal protein. Vegetable protein is identical for all practical purposes and has no cholesterol and vastly less saturated fat. (Do not be misled by the antiquated belief that plant proteins must be carefully balanced to avoid deficiencies. This is not a realistic concern.)Therefore virtually all Americans, Canadians, British andEuropean people are in a protein overloaded state. This hasserious consequences when maintained over decades. The problems are the already mentioned osteoporosis, atherosclerosis and kidney damage. There is good evidence that certain malignancies, chiefly colon and rectal, arerelated to excessive meat intake. Barry Brenner, an eminentrenal physiologist was the first to fully point out the dangers of excess protein for the kidney tubule. The dangersof the fat and cholesterol are known to all. Finally, you should know that the protein content of human milk is amount the lowest (0.9%) in mammals.


IS THAT ALL OF THE TROUBLE?
Sorry, there's more. Remember lactose? This is the principal carbohydrate of milk. It seems that nature provides new-borns with the enzymatic equipment to metabolize lactose, but this ability often extinguishes by age 4 or 5 years.What is the problem with lactose or milk sugar? It seems that it is a disaccharide which is too large to be absorbed into the blood stream without first being broken down into monosaccharides, namely galactose and glucose. This requires the presence of an enzyme, lactase plus additional enzymes to break down the galactose into glucose. Let's think about his for a moment. Nature gives us the ability to metabolize lactose for a few years and then shuts off the mechanism. Is Mother Nature trying to tell us something? Clearly all infants must drink milk. The fact that so many adults cannot seems to be related to the tendency for nature to abandon mechanisms that are not needed. At least half of the adult humans on this earth are lactose intolerant. It was not until the relatively recent introduction of dairy herding and the ability to "borrow"milk from another group of mammals that the survival advantage of preserving lactase (the enzyme that allows usto digest lactose) became evident. But why would it be advantageous to drink cows' milk? After all, most of the human beings in the history of the world did. And further,why was it just the white or light skinned humans who retained this knack while the pigmented people tended tolose it? Some students of evolution feel that white skin is a fairly recent innovation, perhaps not more than 20,000 or 30,000 years old. It clearly has to do with the Northward migration of early man to cold and relatively sunless areas when skinsa nd clothing became available. Fair skin allows the production of Vitamin D from sunlight more readily than does dark skin. However, when only the face was exposed to sunlight that area of fair skin was insufficient to providethe vitamin D from sunlight. If dietary and sunlight sources were poorly available, the ability to use the abundant calcium in cows' milk would give a survival advantage to humans who could digest that milk. This seems to be the only logical explanation for fair skinned humans having a high degree of lactose tolerance when compared to dark skinned people.How does this break down? Certain racial groups, namely blacks are up to 90% lactose intolerant as adults.Caucasians are 20 to 40% lactose intolerant. Orientals are midway between the above two groups. Diarrhea, gas and abdominal cramps are the results of substantial milk intake in such persons. Most American Indians cannot tolerate milk. The milk industry admits that lactose intolerance plays intestinal havoc with as many as 50 million Americans. Alactose-intolerance industry has sprung up and had sales of$117 million in 1992 (Time May 17, 1993.) What if you are lactose-intolerant and lust after dairyproducts? Is all lost? Not at all. It seems that lactose is largely digested by bacteria and you will be able to enjoy your cheese despite lactose intolerance. Yogurt is similar in this respect. Finally, and I could never have dreamed this up, geneticists want to splice genes to alter the composition of milk (Am J Clin Nutr 1993 Suppl 302s).One could quibble and say that milk is totally devoid offiber content and that its habitual use will predispose to constipation and bowel disorders. The association with anemia and occult intestinal bleeding in infants is known to all physicians. This is chiefly fromits lack of iron and its irritating qualities for the intestinal mucosa. The pediatric literature abounds with articles describing irritated intestinal lining, bleeding,increased permeability as well as colic, diarrhea andvomiting in cows'milk-sensitive babies. The anemia gets adouble push by loss of blood and iron as well as deficiency of iron in the cows' milk. Milk is also the leading cause of childhood allergy.


LOW FAT
One additional topic: the matter of "low fat" milk. A common and sincere question is: "Well, low fat milk is OK, isn'tit?"The answer to this question is that low fat milk isn't lowfat. The term "low fat" is a marketing term used to gull the public. Low fat milk contains from 24 to 33% fat ascalories! The 2% figure is also misleading. This refers toweight. They don't tell you that, by weight, the milk is 87%water!"Well, then, kill-joy surely you must approve of non-fatmilk!" I hear this quite a bit. (Another constant concernis: "What do you put on your cereal?") True, there is littleo r no fat, but now you have a relative overburden of protein and lactose. It there is something that we do not need more of it is another simple sugar-lactose, composed of galactose and glucose. Millions of Americans are lactose intolerant toboot, as noted. As for protein, as stated earlier, we livein a society that routinely ingests far more protein than we need. It is a burden for our bodies, especially the kidneys,and a prominent cause of osteoporosis. Concerning the dry cereal issue, I would suggest soy milk, rice milk or almond milk as a healthy substitute. If you're still concerneda bout calcium, "Westsoy" is formulated to have the same calcium concentration as milk.


SUMMARY
To my thinking, there is only one valid reason to drink milk or use milk products. That is just because we simply want to. Because we like it and because it has become a part ofo ur culture. Because we have become accustomed to its tastea nd texture. Because we like the way it slides down our throat. Because our parents did the very best they could forus and provided milk in our earliest training and conditioning. They taught us to like it. And then probably the very best reason is ice cream! I've heard it described"to die for".I had one patient who did exactly that. He had no obviousvices. He didn't smoke or drink, he didn’t eat meat, his diet and lifestyle was nearly a perfectly health promoting one; but he had a passion. You guessed it, he loved rich ice cream. A pint of the richest would be a lean day's ration for him. On many occasions he would eat an entire quart -and yes there were some cookies and other pastries. Good ice cream deserves this after all. He seemed to be in good health despite some expected "middle age spread" when he hada devastating stroke which left him paralyzed, miserable and helpless, and he had additional strokes and died several years later never having left a hospital or rehabilitation unit. Was he old? I don't think so. He was in his 50s.So don't drink milk for health. I am convinced on the weightof the scientific evidence that it does not "do a body good." Inclusion of milk will only reduce your diet's nutritional value and safety.Most of the people on this planet live very healthfully without cows' milk. You can too.It will be difficult to change; we've been conditioned sincec hildhood to think of milk as "nature's most perfect food."I'll guarantee you that it will be safe, improve your healthand it won't cost anything. What can you lose?(Article courtesty of Dr. Kradjian and http://www.afpafitness.com/articles/MILKDOC.HTM)document.write("Email This Page to Someone you care about!");






--
Posted By Rawman Walking to Living Raw And Free at 7/15/2009 10:43:00 PM