Alarming Warning for Men Who Drink Milk  

Page 3 / 3 Prev
  RSS

MarcusW
(@marcusw)
Active Member
Joined: 5 months ago
Posts: 13
27/11/2018 4:50 pm  

quote:


Most people would most likely NOT benefit from the extra calories and sat fat in whole milk.


Maybe they won't, but it will not be because saturated fat is bad as I argued before. But even if I leave that broader argument alone and focus only on milk:

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/69/1/2 2" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/69/1/22

This study concludes that there is an inverse association between the intake of milk fat and certain cardiovascular risk factors. So even there no evidence that the saturated fats in milk are bad for you.

Just remember, somewhere, a little Chinese girl is warming up with your max (Jim Conroy, Olympic weightlifting coach)


ReplyQuote
jboldman
(@jboldman)
Reputable Member
Joined: 6 months ago
Posts: 359
28/11/2018 8:25 am  

you make a compelling arguement however this study is useless wrt making that arguement. even the study admits that "The explanation for the inverse associations between the intake of milk products and certain cardiovascular risk factors is not known."

jb


ReplyQuote
MarcusW
(@marcusw)
Active Member
Joined: 5 months ago
Posts: 13
28/11/2018 9:18 am  

quote:


you make a compelling arguement however this study is useless wrt making that arguement. even the study admits that "The explanation for the inverse associations between the intake of milk products and certain cardiovascular risk factors is not known."


wrt which argument?
I am not using it to support the broader discussion that saturated fats are healthy, just that in milkfat (let's say for some freaky unknown reason) they not only don't hurt, but even result in an inverse association with CV risk factors.
So my point is that there IS an inverse association not so much the explanation for why that is the case for milkfat.
IMO that directly refutes, what you said i.e.:
1) Most people would most likely NOT benefit from ... sat fat in whole milk.
2) drink skim milk and get your fat from a healthier source, ie one without saturated fat

Because they DO benefit and milkfat IS a healthy fat source(according to this study).

Just remember, somewhere, a little Chinese girl is warming up with your max (Jim Conroy, Olympic weightlifting coach)


ReplyQuote
jboldman
(@jboldman)
Reputable Member
Joined: 6 months ago
Posts: 359
28/11/2018 11:52 am  

actually what this study said was that when 62 seventy year old men kept a record of what they ate for 7 days, there was a statistical correlation between certain parameters and the reported dairy intake. Just leaving aside the fact that these were 70 year olds with no other history noted and the study was based on a 7 day record of dairy intake( if i am correctly interpreting the "7d."), this was simply a statistical observation that even the authors would not attribute a cause and effect to. You do your argument no good basing your conclusions on this study.

i stand by what i said, a), most of us would not benefit from the extra calories present in whole milk, and b) saturated fat in excess be it from whole milk or prime rib is not the ideal source of dietary calories.

This study most definitely does not establish that we would benefit from whole milk and the authors even point that out, now if the study were based on 70 healthy men between the ages of 25 and 45 who kept track of their dairy intake for 6 months and also were screened for any other confounding variables, i would be more inclined to agree.

hmmm, here is a study that says if you are genetically susceptible, dairy fats will increased your risk of dementia!

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...l=pubmed_docsum

at least in my mind, there is enough concern about saturated fat and whole milk that given i do not need the extra calories, i am not going to rush out and drink it for any purported benefits.

Here are the conclusions of the journal of clinical oncology wrt milk fat and prostate cancer.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...l=pubmed_DocSum

jb


ReplyQuote
guijr
(@guijr)
Reputable Member
Joined: 6 months ago
Posts: 276
28/11/2018 12:28 pm  

Just my opinion, but in that particular paper that concludes there's an inverse association between the intake of milk fat and certain cardiovascular risk factors based in the food records of what they ate for last 7 days is useless. This kind of study generates several biases and has some limitations.

"The medals don't mean anything and the glory doesn't last. It's all about your happiness. The rewards are going to come, but my happiness is just loving the sport and having fun performing" ~ Jackie Joyner Kersee.


ReplyQuote
guijr
(@guijr)
Reputable Member
Joined: 6 months ago
Posts: 276
28/11/2018 1:04 pm  

Just found a study limitation reported in that very paper:

"There are some factors in this study that may have confounded the results. First, dietary records seldom show true dietary intake, and should always be interpreted cautiously. However, the imprecision of the dietary data would tend to diminish the strength of the investigated relations. Second, the intake of dairy foods among 70-y-old men may be associated with a health-conscious lifestyle also characterized by good eating habits, lower body weight, and higher physical activity. However, significant associations remained between intake of certain diary products or fat from dairy products and metabolic measures, even after adjustment for other food habits and physical activity. Third, the group of participants was not representative of the total population for age and sex, and other relations may be seen in other populations. A fourth possible confounder was the effect of selection of survivors in a cohort population that has been followed for several years."

"The medals don't mean anything and the glory doesn't last. It's all about your happiness. The rewards are going to come, but my happiness is just loving the sport and having fun performing" ~ Jackie Joyner Kersee.


ReplyQuote
MarcusW
(@marcusw)
Active Member
Joined: 5 months ago
Posts: 13
28/11/2018 1:49 pm  

quote:


actually what this study said was that when 62 seventy year old men kept a record of what they ate for 7 days, there was a statistical correlation between certain parameters and the reported dairy intake. Just leaving aside the fact that these were 70 year olds with no other history noted and the study was based on a 7 day record of dairy intake( if i am correctly interpreting the "7d.")


A counterargument to this is given in the article, in the very piece gujir quoted:

However, the imprecision of the dietary data would tend to diminish the strength of the investigated relations

Meaning that if a 7 day record wouldn't be a good representation of the overall diet, the effect of this inaccuracy would be finding no correlations at all let alone a strong inverse relationship.

quote:


this was simply a statistical observation that even the authors would not attribute a cause and effect to. You do your argument no good basing your conclusions on this study


I personally am not basing my argument on just this study as you very well know. It's just that I wanted to try to decrease the scope of the discussion to just milk since I didn't want to redo the saturated fat discussion.
Also: at least I'm basing it on something! As often as people keep saying milkfat is bad you would expect to find more clearcut studies about that subject but I for one can't find that many. Sure there are limitations to this one and as always it's not hard to point them out, but I invite you to find a study without those limitations which supports your view.
Then I would be more inclined to agree with you

That the authors didn't want to attribute a cause and effect to the correlation they found is understandable (see quote below) but also irrelevant. That in itself doesn't somehow diminish the correlation they found.

quote:


The relations we found between the intake of milk products and several physiologic variables, such as body weight, BMI, waist circumference, and LDL-HDL ratio were negative, whereas the relations to HDL cholesterol and apolipoprotein A-I were positive (Table 8). If these relations reflect real, long-term causal associations, they are hard to reconcile with the opinion that high intakes of milk products, including the main cholesterolemic SFAs 12:0, 14:0, and 16:0 present in milk products, are connected with an increased risk of ischemic heart disease (16, 17, 19, 38). However, the effects of dietary SFAs on serum lipoproteins are complex and probably also depend on several other factors such as genetic disposition, concomitant intake of PUFAs and antioxidants, and other components of food (39). The positive relation between fat from butter and HDL cholesterol seen in this study could be due to the relatively high amounts of SFAs 12:0 and 14:0 in milk fat, fatty acids which have been concluded to increase both total serum and HDL cholesterol (40, 41). Hypocholesterolemic effects of milk products have been observed in some studies (42�45). It is not yet clear what substances in milk products might cause these effects, although several have been discussed, such as hydroxymethylglutaric acid, calcium, orotic acid, lactose, uric acid, or substances in the membrane of the fat particle (42). In several studies the possibly protective role of dietary calcium in the development of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disorders was discussed (46, 47). However, in this study, adjustments for calcium intake did not affect the relations between the intake of dairy fat and metabolic risk factors. This finding indicates that these relations were not explained by the intake of calcium in the dairy products.

Just remember, somewhere, a little Chinese girl is warming up with your max (Jim Conroy, Olympic weightlifting coach)


ReplyQuote
Page 3 / 3 Prev
Share:
  
Working

Please Login or Register