29 replies to this topic

[niner]

There's been a persistent anti-dairy message from various quarters for many years. Some people are lactose intolerant, and less commonly some people have problems with casein. Vegans consider dairy consumption to be excessively mean to cows, or something. The anti-fat crowd is terrified of the evil fat that it contains. And yet...

Lipids. 2010 Oct;45(10):925-39. Epub 2010 Apr 16.
The consumption of milk and dairy foods and the incidence of vascular disease and diabetes: an overview of the evidence.
Elwood PC, Pickering JE, Givens DI, Gallacher JE.

Department of Primary Care and Public Health, Cardiff University, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, UK. pelwood@doctors.org.uk

The health effects of milk and dairy food consumption would best be determined in randomised controlled trials. No adequately powered trial has been reported and none is likely because of the numbers required. The best evidence comes, therefore, from prospective cohort studies with disease events and death as outcomes. Medline was searched for prospective studies of dairy food consumption and incident vascular disease and Type 2 diabetes, based on representative population samples. Reports in which evaluation was in incident disease or death were selected. Meta-analyses of the adjusted estimates of relative risk for disease outcomes in these reports were conducted. Relevant case-control retrospective studies were also identified and the results are summarised in this article. Meta-analyses suggest a reduction in risk in the subjects with the highest dairy consumption relative to those with the lowest intake: 0.87 (0.77, 0.98) for all-cause deaths, 0.92 (0.80, 0.99) for ischaemic heart disease, 0.79 (0.68, 0.91) for stroke and 0.85 (0.75, 0.96) for incident diabetes. The number of cohort studies which give evidence on individual dairy food items is very small, but, again, there is no convincing evidence of harm from consumption of the separate food items. In conclusion, there appears to be an enormous mis-match between the evidence from long-term prospective studies and perceptions of harm from the consumption of dairy food items.

PMID: 20397059
PMCID: PMC2950929 Free PMC Article

It's particularly good for avoiding stroke.

[TheFountain]

What would account for the mismatch between the perception of harm and the long term studies outcomes? General psychosis?

Edited by TheFountain, 31 December 2011 - 06:22 AM.

[Mind]

What would account for the mismatch between the perception of harm and the long term studies outcomes? General psychosis?

I'll take a stab at it: Animal rights activism. I would suggest that animal rights activists jump at every tiny minuscule shred of questionable evidence to deride dairy, egg, and meat consumption. It is an internal/personal bias.

I have often argued that animal rights activists should stick to the moral/ethical question of using animals for food because it is a solid argument (and it becomes more solid every year in our modern society). When they drift off and create websites like not-milk, and try too hard to prove that humans are not meant (or evolved) to kill and eat anything except plants (or fruits in the case of fruitarians), then they get into trouble. The science does not back the argument up very well. As is the case with dairy consumption.

In my particular case, I grew up on a dairy farm, so I never believed the not-milk crowd and all of their hysteria (although most of our family farms were substantially organic, so that could play a part). Most of my family and relatives consumed copious quantities of dairy their entire life, and most reached the average lifespan, several have made it into their 90s.

[TheFountain]

What would account for the mismatch between the perception of harm and the long term studies outcomes? General psychosis?

I'll take a stab at it: Animal rights activism. I would suggest that animal rights activists jump at every tiny minuscule shred of questionable evidence to deride dairy, egg, and meat consumption. It is an internal/personal bias.

I have often argued that animal rights activists should stick to the moral/ethical question of using animals for food because it is a solid argument (and it becomes more solid every year in our modern society). When they drift off and create websites like not-milk, and try too hard to prove that humans are not meant (or evolved) to kill and eat anything except plants (or fruits in the case of fruitarians), then they get into trouble. The science does not back the argument up very well. As is the case with dairy consumption.

In my particular case, I grew up on a dairy farm, so I never believed the not-milk crowd and all of their hysteria (although most of our family farms were substantially organic, so that could play a part). Most of my family and relatives consumed copious quantities of dairy their entire life, and most reached the average lifespan, several have made it into their 90s.

Hasn't lactose intolerance existed since long before the animal rights movement? Hasn't the correlation between egg consumption and CAD existed since long before the animal rights movement? I believe the latter was a medical correlation which dates back to the first decade of the 20th century (the animal rights movement took off at the latter end of the 20th century). That's what worries me, since everyone in my family who has had a history of high cholesterol was told that it was the dietary consumption doing it, and that they were partly able to stabilize their cholesterol levels by curtailing egg consumption, in addition to some pharmaceutical. Doesn't phenotype have a lot to do with these sensitivities? Isn't it folly to say 'most' people would do well on high fat (including dairy) and low carb, when we haven't even scratched the surface of the phenotype research?

Edited by TheFountain, 31 December 2011 - 01:02 PM.

[Mind]

Yes, of course, different phenotypes do well on different diets. You are absolutely correct. Everyone should find what works best for them. I was just trying to explain the enormous, incredible, pervasive, and many times unscientific unproven psychological bias against dairy products.

There is also the anti-fat hysteria that plays into it. Having grown up during the 1970s through 1990s in America, I was subject to the extreme anti-fat hysteria that permeated the culture during this time period (and of course, natural dairy products have a lot of fat). I can't believe how brainwashed I was. I just accepted the popular theme that fat was absolutely the worst possible thing anyone could ever ingest and that I should avoid it at all costs. I am glad I found Imminst to get a more balanced view.

[TheFountain]

Yes, of course, different phenotypes do well on different diets. You are absolutely correct. Everyone should find what works best for them. I was just trying to explain the enormous, incredible, pervasive, and many times unscientific unproven psychological bias against dairy products.

There is also the anti-fat hysteria that plays into it. Having grown up during the 1970s through 1990s in America, I was subject to the extreme anti-fat hysteria that permeated the culture during this time period (and of course, natural dairy products have a lot of fat). I can't believe how brainwashed I was. I just accepted the popular theme that fat was absolutely the worst possible thing anyone could ever ingest and that I should avoid it at all costs. I am glad I found Imminst to get a more balanced view.

I don't know how balanced the view here is, since the overwhelming majority of posters seem to suggest a paleo-ish diet without knowing the individuals phenotype who they are recommending it to. How many of us actually know our phenotype? 1 out of every 10? 1 out of every 20? Is it adequate for us to just note which diet makes us hold on to body fat more readily to determine our likely phenotype? As some research on high fat diets point out, there is no hyper caloric metabolic advantage to it, other than that most paleo dieters tend to eat less calories than the average western diet contains. So that might make determining phenotype a little sketchy without testing.

[Werner]

There's been a persistent anti-dairy message from various quarters for many years. Some people are lactose intolerant, and less commonly some people have problems with casein. Vegans consider dairy consumption to be excessively mean to cows, or something. The anti-fat crowd is terrified of the evil fat that it contains. And yet...

Lipids. 2010 Oct;45(10):925-39. Epub 2010 Apr 16.
The consumption of milk and dairy foods and the incidence of vascular disease and diabetes: an overview of the evidence.
Elwood PC, Pickering JE, Givens DI, Gallacher JE.

Department of Primary Care and Public Health, Cardiff University, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, UK. pelwood@doctors.org.uk

The health effects of milk and dairy food consumption would best be determined in randomised controlled trials. No adequately powered trial has been reported and none is likely because of the numbers required. The best evidence comes, therefore, from prospective cohort studies with disease events and death as outcomes. Medline was searched for prospective studies of dairy food consumption and incident vascular disease and Type 2 diabetes, based on representative population samples. Reports in which evaluation was in incident disease or death were selected. Meta-analyses of the adjusted estimates of relative risk for disease outcomes in these reports were conducted. Relevant case-control retrospective studies were also identified and the results are summarised in this article. Meta-analyses suggest a reduction in risk in the subjects with the highest dairy consumption relative to those with the lowest intake: 0.87 (0.77, 0.98) for all-cause deaths, 0.92 (0.80, 0.99) for ischaemic heart disease, 0.79 (0.68, 0.91) for stroke and 0.85 (0.75, 0.96) for incident diabetes. The number of cohort studies which give evidence on individual dairy food items is very small, but, again, there is no convincing evidence of harm from consumption of the separate food items. In conclusion, there appears to be an enormous mis-match between the evidence from long-term prospective studies and perceptions of harm from the consumption of dairy food items.

PMID: 20397059
PMCID: PMC2950929 Free PMC Article

It's particularly good for avoiding stroke.

Lipids. 2010 Oct;45(10):925-39. Epub 2010 Apr 16.
The consumption of milk and dairy foods and the incidence of vascular disease and diabetes: an overview of the evidence.

It's particularly good for avoiding stroke.

Not a good article because it is not based on dairys metabolism and
the resulting damage.
Take osteoporosis, for example. How many women have been misled
to drink milk in order to avoid osteoporosis. But instead we have
record numbers of osteoporosis in countries with highest dairy
consumption (Danmark, USA). And very low numbers in countries
with very low dairy consumption.
Dairy creates the following health problems:

a) Arachidonic acid => CVD, hypertension
b) A1 beta casein + BCM7 => brain disorders/Alzheimer, diabetes
c) ß-lactoglobulin => allergies
d) galactose => eye problems
e) acid production => problems with acid-base homeostasis

Quite a lot of disorders...

[niner]

Not a good article because it is not based on dairys metabolism and
the resulting damage.
Take osteoporosis, for example. How many women have been misled
to drink milk in order to avoid osteoporosis. But instead we have
record numbers of osteoporosis in countries with highest dairy
consumption (Danmark, USA). And very low numbers in countries
with very low dairy consumption.
Dairy creates the following health problems:

a) Arachidonic acid => CVD, hypertension
b) A1 beta casein + BCM7 => brain disorders/Alzheimer, diabetes
c) ß-lactoglobulin => allergies
d) galactose => eye problems
e) acid production => problems with acid-base homeostasis

Quite a lot of disorders...

All those health problems you list are theoretical. They could occur, and no doubt do in some people, but when you compare people who consume dairy to those who don't, it tells a different story. One can only conclude the the benefits outweigh the risks for the typical person.

It's only "Not a good article" because it doesn't come to the conclusion you prefer. The country-level data that you mention is very weak evidence because there is no way to correct for confounding correlations.

[Werner]

Not a good article because it is not based on dairys metabolism and
the resulting damage.
Take osteoporosis, for example. How many women have been misled
to drink milk in order to avoid osteoporosis. But instead we have
record numbers of osteoporosis in countries with highest dairy
consumption (Danmark, USA). And very low numbers in countries
with very low dairy consumption.
Dairy creates the following health problems:

a) Arachidonic acid => CVD, hypertension
b) A1 beta casein + BCM7 => brain disorders/Alzheimer, diabetes
c) ß-lactoglobulin => allergies
d) galactose => eye problems
e) acid production => problems with acid-base homeostasis

Quite a lot of disorders...

All those health problems you list are theoretical. They could occur, and no doubt do in some people, but when you compare people who consume dairy to those who don't, it tells a different story. One can only conclude the the benefits outweigh the risks for the typical person.

It's only "Not a good article" because it doesn't come to the conclusion you prefer. The country-level data that you mention is very weak evidence because there is no way to correct for confounding correlations.

Sorry, I disagree. Do you think that all these masses of western
people with CVD, diabetes, stroke, Alzheimer, osteoporosis are
only theoretical masses? No, they really exist. And where do these
diseases come from? What is the reason? No question, nutrition
is the most important reason. In Western countries you find a very
bad nutrition: too much dairy, meat, cakes and candy, fast food
and so on.
I do not prefer a conclusion. I want a conclusion that is true reliable.
It is very difficult to get such a conclusion in a world where everything is
dominated by money. You can't trust a study that is financed by
the industry. And most studies are.

[Lufega]

In Western countries you find a very
bad nutrition: too much dairy, meat, cakes and candy, fast food
and so on.

I have no idea why the meat and dairy get the blame. It's all the cakes, candy and fast food that are causing all the problems in addition to not ingesting enough veggies and fruits.

If you take away all the meat, fat and dairy, what are we left to eat ? Grains ? Wonderful grains ?

I was lactose intolerant by 18 years old and I believed it was my body's way of telling me to stop drinking milk. So I bought into the no milk, low fat hysteria. Many years later, I stopped eating grains and one day by accident noticed I didn't have lactose intolerance anymore.

Lactose intolerance has nothing to do with drinking milk. Gluten destroys the brush borders of the intestines and this is where lactase is produced. Luckily, this area can regenerate itself, given the insult (gluten) is removed.

edit: Added study

Regression of lactose malabsorption in coeliac patients after receiving agluten-free diet.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

In a recent study by our group, it was shown that a large proportion of patients with lactose malabsorption and with no bacterial overgrowth are affected by silent coeliac disease (CD). Our aim was to evaluate the effect of a gluten-free diet on lactose malabsorption assessed using the hydrogen lactose breath test (LBT) and also the relationship with normalization of duodenal biopsies in coeliac patients.
MATERIAL AND METHODS:

Fifteen patients (11 F, 4 M; mean age 35.8+/-6) affected by CD with a positive LBT and negative glucose breath test were enrolled. All were started on a gluten-free diet and were re-evaluated after 6 months by LBT and after 12 months by both LBT and upper gastrointestinal endoscopy with biopsies.
RESULTS:

LBT normalization was observed in 1 out of 15 patients (6.7%) after 6 months and in 9 of the remaining 14 (64.2%) after 12 months. Duodenal biopsies showed normal villi in 8 patients, partial villous atrophy in 5 and total atrophy in 2.
CONCLUSIONS:

The present study shows that a large proportion of CD patients experience a regression of lactose malabsorption after receiving a

gluten

-free diet. This may be related to normalization of the

brush border

with an improvement of

lactase

enzyme activity. LBT should be performed after 12 months in CD patients on a

gluten

-free diet in order to assess the persistence/disappearance of lactose malabsorption, thus avoiding an unnecessary lactose-free diet.

In Silent celiacs disease, you have antibodies present and loss of villi but no signs and symptoms. Lactose intolerance can be considered a S&S of gluten/gliadin intolerance even if no other symptoms are present.

Edited by Lufega, 02 January 2012 - 06:00 PM.

[TheKidInside]

the REAL truth about milk, A1/A2 milk, "organic" vs organic GRASS FED cow milk, raw milk. etc

Edited by TheKidInside, 02 January 2012 - 09:01 PM.

[Werner]

In Western countries you find a very
bad nutrition: too much dairy, meat, cakes and candy, fast food
and so on.

I have no idea why the meat and dairy get the blame. It's all the cakes, candy and fast food that are causing all the problems in addition to not ingesting enough veggies and fruits.

If you take away all the meat, fat and dairy, what are we left to eat ? Grains ? Wonderful grains ?

I was lactose intolerant by 18 years old and I believed it was my body's way of telling me to stop drinking milk. So I bought into the no milk, low fat hysteria. Many years later, I stopped eating grains and one day by accident noticed I didn't have lactose intolerance anymore.

Lactose intolerance has nothing to do with drinking milk. Gluten destroys the brush borders of the intestines and this is where lactase is produced. Luckily, this area can regenerate itself, given the insult (gluten) is removed.

edit: Added study

In Silent celiacs disease, you have antibodies present and loss of villi but no signs and symptoms. Lactose intolerance can be considered a S&S of gluten/gliadin intolerance even if no other symptoms are present.

Too much meat is bad. Why? It is the arachidonic acid thing. AA causes
CVD, inflammation, hypertension and last but not least cancer. Go to google
with the words colon cancer meat and you will find everything about it.
2.3 million sites.
Too much dairy is bad as well. Why? The human body does not have
a metabolism that is adapted to these quantities of dairy as we consume.
Grain is bad, yes. Why? WGA = wheat germ agglutinins => destroy zinc
and other metals => joint problems. Hip surgery is a booming industry.

[Lufega]

Too much meat is bad. Why? It is the arachidonic acid thing. AA causes
CVD, inflammation, hypertension and last but not least cancer. Go to google
with the words colon cancer meat and you will find everything about it.
2.3 million sites.

Vegetarians Have Fewer Cancers But Higher Risk Of Colorectal Cancer, Study

Someone close to me who was a devout vegan died of colon cancer. She didn't see it coming. One day she complained of abdominal pain and died in the hospital a week later. Whatever is causing colon cancer in vegans is also causing it in meat eaters. It's not the meat.

edit: Corrected spelling error.

Edited by Lufega, 03 January 2012 - 03:09 AM.

[niner]

Too much meat is bad. Why? It is the arachidonic acid thing. AA causes
CVD, inflammation, hypertension and last but not least cancer. Go to google
with the words colon cancer meat and you will find everything about it.
2.3 million sites.
Too much dairy is bad as well. Why? The human body does not have
a metabolism that is adapted to these quantities of dairy as we consume.
Grain is bad, yes. Why? WGA = wheat germ agglutinins => destroy zinc
and other metals => joint problems. Hip surgery is a booming industry.

"Too much" of anything is bad, by definition. However, the data is telling us that meat and dairy in reasonable amounts are not bad. For most people, it appears that some meat and dairy is better than no meat and dairy. I don't think you care what the data says, though. I think your mind is made up.

[The Immortalist]

Too much meat is bad. Why? It is the arachidonic acid thing. AA causes
CVD, inflammation, hypertension and last but not least cancer. Go to google
with the words colon cancer meat and you will find everything about it.
2.3 million sites.
Too much dairy is bad as well. Why? The human body does not have
a metabolism that is adapted to these quantities of dairy as we consume.
Grain is bad, yes. Why? WGA = wheat germ agglutinins => destroy zinc
and other metals => joint problems. Hip surgery is a booming industry.

"Too much" of anything is bad, by definition. However, the data is telling us that meat and dairy in reasonable amounts are not bad. For most people, it appears that some meat and dairy is better than no meat and dairy. I don't think you care what the data says, though. I think your mind is made up.

Aren't you worried about the WGA's in wheat?

[niner]

Aren't you worried about the WGA's in wheat?

I might be a little bit if I was eating wheat constantly, but I eat it sporadically these days, and usually not in large quantities. I usually have a nutrient-dense dinner with no wheat. To be honest, I think the hazards of antinutrients are a little overblown, but that's just an opinion.

[The Immortalist]

Aren't you worried about the WGA's in wheat?

I might be a little bit if I was eating wheat constantly, but I eat it sporadically these days, and usually not in large quantities. I usually have a nutrient-dense dinner with no wheat. To be honest, I think the hazards of antinutrients are a little overblown, but that's just an opinion.

It's not just wheat that has them but all members of the grass famly such as rice, wheat, spelt, and rye.

[Werner]

Too much meat is bad. Why? It is the arachidonic acid thing. AA causes
CVD, inflammation, hypertension and last but not least cancer. Go to google
with the words colon cancer meat and you will find everything about it.
2.3 million sites.

Vegetarians Have Fewer Cancers But Higher Risk Of Colorectal Cancer, Study

Someone close to me who was a devout vegan died of colon cancer. She didn't see it coming. One day she complained of abdominal pain and died in the hospital a week later. Whatever is causing colon cancer in vegans is also causing it in meat eaters. It's not the meat.

edit: Corrected spelling error.

Vegans can get cancer, too. But if you compare the numbers with
those of normal people you will see that less vegans die of cancer.
You always have to look at metabolic reasons why diseases are
developing. A very good biochemical description of the process
AA => cancer you will find here
http://jn.nutrition....4/12/3421S.full

[Werner]

Too much meat is bad. Why? It is the arachidonic acid thing. AA causes
CVD, inflammation, hypertension and last but not least cancer. Go to google
with the words colon cancer meat and you will find everything about it.
2.3 million sites.
Too much dairy is bad as well. Why? The human body does not have
a metabolism that is adapted to these quantities of dairy as we consume.
Grain is bad, yes. Why? WGA = wheat germ agglutinins => destroy zinc
and other metals => joint problems. Hip surgery is a booming industry.

"Too much" of anything is bad, by definition. However, the data is telling us that meat and dairy in reasonable amounts are not bad. For most people, it appears that some meat and dairy is better than no meat and dairy. I don't think you care what the data says, though. I think your mind is made up.

...the data says? The data says that we have huge health problems
in western countries: diabetes, CVD, stroke, osteoporosis, cancer,
Alzheimer. This is a fact. Did you ever ask from where this health
crisis is coming? What is your opinion?

[TheFountain]

Why are there so many people with dairy/casein sensitivities who report swollen glands (especially thyroid glands) which are reduced upon discontinuing the dairy?

It cannot just be an adjunct of gluten sensitivity, since some of them claim they are on low carb, no grain diets.

[niner]

Too much meat is bad. Why? It is the arachidonic acid thing. AA causes
CVD, inflammation, hypertension and last but not least cancer. Go to google
with the words colon cancer meat and you will find everything about it.
2.3 million sites.
Too much dairy is bad as well. Why? The human body does not have
a metabolism that is adapted to these quantities of dairy as we consume.
Grain is bad, yes. Why? WGA = wheat germ agglutinins => destroy zinc
and other metals => joint problems. Hip surgery is a booming industry.

"Too much" of anything is bad, by definition. However, the data is telling us that meat and dairy in reasonable amounts are not bad. For most people, it appears that some meat and dairy is better than no meat and dairy. I don't think you care what the data says, though. I think your mind is made up.

...the data says? The data says that we have huge health problems
in western countries: diabetes, CVD, stroke, osteoporosis, cancer,
Alzheimer. This is a fact. Did you ever ask from where this health
crisis is coming? What is your opinion?

"The data" is in the first post of this thread. I know that there are massive health problems in Western countries. It comes from crappy industrial diets that are far too high in sugar and omega 6 fatty acids, and deficient in many nutrients, including, importantly, some that one could get from consuming full fat dairy.

As I mentioned before, looking at an entire country or region at one time is a horrible way to understand if a given food source is good or bad, because there is no way to tell what other foods or lifestyles might be correlated with them. The best way to answer questions like how healthy a food source is is to run a large and long term double blind randomized trial. This is rare in the study of nutrition, because it is so difficult and expensive. Moving down the evidentiary ladder, we can look at the diets of individuals, and thereby have some ability to control for confounders. That is the type of data in the first post. It is far more meaningful than country level data.

Edited by niner, 03 January 2012 - 10:02 PM.

[Werner]

Too much meat is bad. Why? It is the arachidonic acid thing. AA causes
CVD, inflammation, hypertension and last but not least cancer. Go to google
with the words colon cancer meat and you will find everything about it.
2.3 million sites.
Too much dairy is bad as well. Why? The human body does not have
a metabolism that is adapted to these quantities of dairy as we consume.
Grain is bad, yes. Why? WGA = wheat germ agglutinins => destroy zinc
and other metals => joint problems. Hip surgery is a booming industry.

"Too much" of anything is bad, by definition. However, the data is telling us that meat and dairy in reasonable amounts are not bad. For most people, it appears that some meat and dairy is better than no meat and dairy. I don't think you care what the data says, though. I think your mind is made up.

...the data says? The data says that we have huge health problems
in western countries: diabetes, CVD, stroke, osteoporosis, cancer,
Alzheimer. This is a fact. Did you ever ask from where this health
crisis is coming? What is your opinion?

"The data" is in the first post of this thread. I know that there are massive health problems in Western countries. It comes from crappy industrial diets that are far too high in sugar and omega 6 fatty acids, and deficient in many nutrients, including, importantly, some that one could get from consuming full fat dairy.

As I mentioned before, looking at an entire country or region at one time is a horrible way to understand if a given food source is good or bad, because there is no way to tell what other foods or lifestyles might be correlated with them. The best way to answer questions like how healthy a food source is is to run a large and long term double blind randomized trial. This is rare in the study of nutrition, because it is so difficult and expensive. Moving down the evidentiary ladder, we can look at the diets of individuals, and thereby have some ability to control for confounders. That is the type of data in the first post. It is far more meaningful than country level data.

Do you really think that full fat dairy is a good thing? My opinion is that it is
a horrible thing. The fat profile of dairy is not good with all these SFAs
and the resulting increase of LDL cholesterol. Not to mention AA.
I think that you make a mistake when only blaming "industrial crappy
diets" for our health crisis. There are masses of people eating "normal"
diets with dairy, meat, wheat products and getting these "Western"
diseases. Without eating any crappy products. It is not necessary to
have a crappy diet to get cancer or osteoporosis.
Do you know the Denmark story relating to animal nutrition during
1917-18? The Danish government ordered that all pigs had to be
killed because of shortage to feed them. Shortly after that no pork
was available in Denmark. Consequently, the death numbers of
Denmark in 1917-18 have been the lowest ever recorded.
Thus, it can be very interesting to compare countries and their
different eating habits.

[niner]

"The data" is in the first post of this thread. I know that there are massive health problems in Western countries. It comes from crappy industrial diets that are far too high in sugar and omega 6 fatty acids, and deficient in many nutrients, including, importantly, some that one could get from consuming full fat dairy.

As I mentioned before, looking at an entire country or region at one time is a horrible way to understand if a given food source is good or bad, because there is no way to tell what other foods or lifestyles might be correlated with them. The best way to answer questions like how healthy a food source is is to run a large and long term double blind randomized trial. This is rare in the study of nutrition, because it is so difficult and expensive. Moving down the evidentiary ladder, we can look at the diets of individuals, and thereby have some ability to control for confounders. That is the type of data in the first post. It is far more meaningful than country level data.

Do you really think that full fat dairy is a good thing? My opinion is that it is
a horrible thing. The fat profile of dairy is not good with all these SFAs
and the resulting increase of LDL cholesterol. Not to mention AA.
I think that you make a mistake when only blaming "industrial crappy
diets" for our health crisis. There are masses of people eating "normal"
diets with dairy, meat, wheat products and getting these "Western"
diseases. Without eating any crappy products. It is not necessary to
have a crappy diet to get cancer or osteoporosis.
Do you know the Denmark story relating to animal nutrition during
1917-18? The Danish government ordered that all pigs had to be
killed because of shortage to feed them. Shortly after that no pork
was available in Denmark. Consequently, the death numbers of
Denmark in 1917-18 have been the lowest ever recorded.
Thus, it can be very interesting to compare countries and their
different eating habits.

In this report from 1920, it states that most of the population of Denmark during the 1917-18 food restriction "was living on a milk and vegetable diet". Sounds healthy to me... It further states that "they often lost weight". We know that caloric restriction reduces the death rate. We can't really say much about the effect of the diet unless it is isocaloric with other diets it's being compared with.

Of course it's possible to get cancer, osteoporosis, or various other diseases while eating a good diet. But it's less likely than if you are eating a bad diet.

[Werner]

"The data" is in the first post of this thread. I know that there are massive health problems in Western countries. It comes from crappy industrial diets that are far too high in sugar and omega 6 fatty acids, and deficient in many nutrients, including, importantly, some that one could get from consuming full fat dairy.

Do you really think that full fat dairy is a good thing? My opinion is that it is
a horrible thing. The fat profile of dairy is not good with all these SFAs
and the resulting increase of LDL cholesterol. Not to mention AA.
I think that you make a mistake when only blaming "industrial crappy
diets" for our health crisis. There are masses of people eating "normal"
diets with dairy, meat, wheat products and getting these "Western"
diseases. Without eating any crappy products. It is not necessary to
have a crappy diet to get cancer or osteoporosis.
Do you know the Denmark story relating to animal nutrition during
1917-18? The Danish government ordered that all pigs had to be
killed because of shortage to feed them. Shortly after that no pork
was available in Denmark. Consequently, the death numbers of
Denmark in 1917-18 have been the lowest ever recorded.
Thus, it can be very interesting to compare countries and their
different eating habits.

In this report from 1920, it states that most of the population of Denmark during the 1917-18 food restriction "was living on a milk and vegetable diet". Sounds healthy to me... It further states that "they often lost weight". We know that caloric restriction reduces the death rate. We can't really say much about the effect of the diet unless it is isocaloric with other diets it's being compared with.

Of course it's possible to get cancer, osteoporosis, or various other diseases while eating a good diet. But it's less likely than if you are eating a bad diet.

"Our principal foods were bran bread, barley porridge, patatoes,
greens, milk and some butter."
http://www.euroveg.e...1/denmark2.html
As we agree NO meat. The contribution of milk to the short term
death rate, as considered in Denmark, is negligible. The detrimental
effects relating to infarct+stroke of milk are coming after some years
at least, if ever. Milk only has 4mg/100g AA content. Cheese instead
25-30mg and meat 50-200mg.
You see that meat is dangerous as far as CVD+stroke are concerned
and is able to affect the short term death rate as happened in Denmark.

[niner]

In this report from 1920, it states that most of the population of Denmark during the 1917-18 food restriction "was living on a milk and vegetable diet". Sounds healthy to me... It further states that "they often lost weight". We know that caloric restriction reduces the death rate. We can't really say much about the effect of the diet unless it is isocaloric with other diets it's being compared with.

Of course it's possible to get cancer, osteoporosis, or various other diseases while eating a good diet. But it's less likely than if you are eating a bad diet.

"Our principal foods were bran bread, barley porridge, patatoes,
greens, milk and some butter."
http://www.euroveg.e...1/denmark2.html
As we agree NO meat. The contribution of milk to the short term
death rate, as considered in Denmark, is negligible. The detrimental
effects relating to infarct+stroke of milk are coming after some years
at least, if ever. Milk only has 4mg/100g AA content. Cheese instead
25-30mg and meat 50-200mg.
You see that meat is dangerous as far as CVD+stroke are concerned
and is able to affect the short term death rate as happened in Denmark.

The death rate didn't drop because they weren't eating meat; the hypothetical risk from AA in meat wouldn't show up that fast, if ever. The death rate dropped due to caloric restriction most likely, though we can only infer that because we've seen the same result many times in many species. The 1917-18 Denmark experience was not a controlled experiment, but it still has things to tell us. Mostly about CR, IMHO.

The argument about AA in meat is strictly theoretical. If you look at the epidemiology and separate out regular meat from cured meat, regular meat looks quite good. Cured meat is usually combined with all other meat in studies, and it corrupts the picture for uncured meat. Cured meat is not healthy.

[Werner]

The death rate didn't drop because they weren't eating meat; the hypothetical risk from AA in meat wouldn't show up that fast, if ever. The death rate dropped due to caloric restriction most likely, though we can only infer that because we've seen the same result many times in many species. The 1917-18 Denmark experience was not a controlled experiment, but it still has things to tell us. Mostly about CR, IMHO.

The argument about AA in meat is strictly theoretical. If you look at the epidemiology and separate out regular meat from cured meat, regular meat looks quite good. Cured meat is usually combined with all other meat in studies, and it corrupts the picture for uncured meat. Cured meat is not healthy.

Caloric restriction for people with normal or low BMI does not
reduce the SHORT time death rate. On the contrary, the elderly
- most deaths occur in this population group - are eating less
than the younger ones. Reducing calories even more will lead
to a higher death rate.
You should not underestimate the role of AA. The pharma industry
has a blockbuster business with reversing the effects of AA. This is
the COX-2 inhibitor or NSAR business.
"Compelling evidence from genetic and clinical studies indicates that
COX-2 upregulation is a key step in carcinogenesis."
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/11857443

[Lufega]

Too much meat is bad. Why? It is the arachidonic acid thing. AA causes
CVD, inflammation, hypertension and last but not least cancer. Go to google
with the words colon cancer meat and you will find everything about it.
2.3 million sites.

Vegetarians Have Fewer Cancers But Higher Risk Of Colorectal Cancer, Study

Someone close to me who was a devout vegan died of colon cancer. She didn't see it coming. One day she complained of abdominal pain and died in the hospital a week later. Whatever is causing colon cancer in vegans is also causing it in meat eaters. It's not the meat.

edit: Corrected spelling error.

Expanding on my first comment, this seems like a logical place to start looking at the cause of colorectal cancer. Inadequate potassium (and maybe iodine) intake between meat eater and vegans is one explanation. The lower overall incidence of cancer in vegans could be explained by a higher intake on average, while still remaining insufficient in total. Just because someone is vegan, doesn't mean they get all their calories from fruits and veggies unfortunately. Fruits and veggies just don't provide enough calories to keep someone going. So the remainder calories will most likely come from carbs, grains, etc.

Dietary sodium and potassium intake and colorectal cancer risk.

Abstract

In a large, comprehensive, population-based case-control study of colorectal cancer (The Melbourne Colorectal Cancer Study), a high intake of sodium was shown to be a statistically significant risk factor for rectal cancer in males (RR = 1.72, p = 0.01) and was close to statistical significance in females (RR = 1.58, p = 0.06). This was independent of previously described dietary risk factors and also independent of the previously described beer risk. A high intake of potassium was protective for both males and females, but this effect disappeared after adjustment was made for the previously described dietary risk factors. A high ratio of dietary potassium to sodium was a statistically significant protective factor in females for both colon and rectal cancer, and the significance of this effect was reduced after adjustment was made for the previously described dietary risk factor (RR for colon cancer = 0.70, p = 0.08; RR for rectalcancer = 0.67, p = 0.08). So far, no biological explanations are available for these associations, and while they are of obvious etiologic interest, they should be interpreted with caution.

PMID: 2608540

[Effect of potassium iodide on tumor growth].

Abstract

In the experiments on mice with primary tumors the authors studied the effect of iodine potassium on tumoral growth. It was shown that tumors became smaller in those animals who obtained iodine potassium . Possible mechanisms of this effect are being discussed.

Edited by Lufega, 05 January 2012 - 07:09 PM.

[Werner]

Too much meat is bad. Why? It is the arachidonic acid thing. AA causes
CVD, inflammation, hypertension and last but not least cancer. Go to google
with the words colon cancer meat and you will find everything about it.
2.3 million sites.

Vegetarians Have Fewer Cancers But Higher Risk Of Colorectal Cancer, Study

Someone close to me who was a devout vegan died of colon cancer. She didn't see it coming. One day she complained of abdominal pain and died in the hospital a week later. Whatever is causing colon cancer in vegans is also causing it in meat eaters. It's not the meat.

edit: Corrected spelling error.

Expanding on my first comment, this seems like a logical place to start looking at the cause of colorectal cancer. Inadequate potassium (and maybe iodine) intake between meat eater and vegans is one explanation. The lower overall incidence of cancer in vegans could be explained by a higher intake on average, while still remaining insufficient in total. Just because someone is vegan, doesn't mean they get all their calories from fruits and veggies unfortunately. Fruits and veggies just don't provide enough calories to keep someone going. So the remainder calories will most likely come from carbs, grains, etc.

Dietary sodium and potassium intake and colorectal cancer risk.

Abstract

In a large, comprehensive, population-based case-control study of colorectal cancer (The Melbourne Colorectal Cancer Study), a high intake of sodium was shown to be a statistically significant risk factor for rectal cancer in males (RR = 1.72, p = 0.01) and was close to statistical significance in females (RR = 1.58, p = 0.06). This was independent of previously described dietary risk factors and also independent of the previously described beer risk. A high intake of potassium was protective for both males and females, but this effect disappeared after adjustment was made for the previously described dietary risk factors. A high ratio of dietary potassium to sodium was a statistically significant protective factor in females for both colon and rectal cancer, and the significance of this effect was reduced after adjustment was made for the previously described dietary risk factor (RR for colon cancer = 0.70, p = 0.08; RR for rectalcancer = 0.67, p = 0.08). So far, no biological explanations are available for these associations, and while they are of obvious etiologic interest, they should be interpreted with caution.

PMID: 2608540

[Effect of potassium iodide on tumor growth].

Abstract

In the experiments on mice with primary tumors the authors studied the effect of iodine potassium on tumoral growth. It was shown that tumors became smaller in those animals who obtained iodine potassium . Possible mechanisms of this effect are being discussed.

It is true, vegans also eat horrible things like seeds, muesli and all
this stuff. And of course a lot of cereals. The decisive thing instead
is that they have no animal nutrition. (They should eat fish because
fish has one important substance that cannot be overestimated: omega-
3-FAs). Avoiding all other animal nutrition has one huge advantage:
no animal ///exception is fish/// nutrition = no AA nutrition = less or no cancer =>
http://jn.nutrition....4/12/3421S.full
Of course, there are other explanations why cancer is growing.
Maybe or not, it is difficult to judge because they do not argue with
clear metabolic pathways as is the case with AA. The metabolic
pathways of AA are 100% clear and the industry has built up a
large business to block the AA pathway. And as far as I know you
will not find a cancer or CVD medication with using potassium.

[Lufega]

Unfortunately, potassium is only used to correct hypokalemia, which can be fatal. As long as serum potassium in within range, no one looks at this. However, serum potassium does not correlate well with total body potassium, which is more important.

[Werner]

Fish, and eggs are good in moderation. Red meat is awesome, but not so good for you. Cut back on dairy or quit it completely, it sends IGF-1 though the roof -as does soy isolate. To head off damage caused by methionine (If you do eat meat/eggs/dairy etc.) steam ginseng for 2 hours, 2 grams per day and consume. Steaming ramps up content of saponin rg3 which protects mitochondria from methionine sulfoxide.


Of all the stuff about IGF-1 mentioned here> http://circres.ahajo...t/97/5/411.full. What is most important to take away from it, is this quote:

"Attenuation of insulin/IGF-1 signaling results in upregulation of DAF-16 which activates a variety of genes implicated in longevity and inhibits selective life-shortening genes."

The article is very interesting. IGF-1 metabolically is very important.
But I couldn't find anything about fish, eggs, meat or dairy in this
article.