Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Is cow milk bad for us?

milk

  • Please log in to reply
51 replies to this topic

#1 hani

  • Registered User
  • 134 posts
  • 16
  • Location:EU

Posted 28 March 2013 - 01:57 PM


I drink 1 liter of 2% milk daily. Is it bad for me? I am not lactose intolerant afaik and don't have any digestive problems. Has there been any concrete study that shows that milk is bad for health?
  • 0

#2 Mind

  • Lifetime Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 13,349 posts
  • 3,752
  • Location:Wausau, WI
  • yes

Posted 28 March 2013 - 04:40 PM

Check this past discussion for some answers: http://www.longecity...bad-about-milk/

Maybe continue the discussion there, if you have further questions.
  • 0

#3 misterE

  • Registered User
  • 704 posts
  • -97
  • Location:Texas
  • no

Posted 31 March 2013 - 10:44 PM

Milk (and dairy products in general) have indeed been shown to increase the risk of heart-disease, reproductive-cancers, and both type-1 and type-2 diabetes. Much of the scientific-literature showing beneficial effects of milk and dairy-products are actually paid for by the dairy-industry, so their studies (showing benefits) are biased.

First off, milk is loaded with (saturated) fat. Whole-milk is 50% fat and 2% milk is 35% fat. Cheese is 70% fat! There is undeniable evidence that saturated-fat causes insulin-resistance (the main underlying factor responsible for atherosclerosis and heart-disease). Saturated-fat also causes breast and prostate cancer in a dose-dependent manor.

Secondly the protein in milk; casein and whey, have extremely anabolic effects in the body and stimulate massive increases in IGF-1 and insulin concentrations. Normally IGF-1 and insulin are beneficial hormones with anti-aging properties (like the ability to promote cell growth and inhibit cell death) but if you have cancerous growth in your body, these hormones will also accelerate the growth of cancer. Since fat is calorie-dense (9 calories per gram) and the protein in milk is extremely anabolic, milk contributes to obesity, premature puberty and overall accelerated exaggeration of growth.

Milk does contain female hormones like estrogens, which are known to promote cancers and reduce male fertility. And since milk is also high on the food-chain: it is high in dioxins and other environmental-contaminants. Milk lacks protective substances like phytonutrients, dietary-fiber and vitamin-c all of which are known to promote health. But perhaps the largest clue that humans shouldn’t drink (another animal’s) milk, is this: no adult animal in nature drinks milk after weaning.

Edited by misterE, 31 March 2013 - 10:46 PM.

  • -7

#4 johnross47

  • Registered User
  • 641 posts
  • 174
  • Location:table 42 in the restaurant at the end of the universe

Posted 01 April 2013 - 02:00 PM

The organic skimmed milk I use has 0.1% fat of which saturates are a trace. The semi-skimmed my wife uses has 1.7% of which fats are 1.
  • 0

#5 misterE

  • Registered User
  • 704 posts
  • -97
  • Location:Texas
  • no

Posted 05 April 2013 - 09:14 PM





  • -2

#6 matthewebbert

  • Registered User
  • 21 posts
  • -1
  • Location:USA

Posted 05 April 2013 - 09:35 PM

I am not much aware with it but i heard that milk can be the reason for heart disease..
  • -5

#7 daouda

  • Registered User
  • 469 posts
  • 107
  • Location:France

Posted 05 April 2013 - 11:03 PM

Most of the fulani people (nomadic pastoralists whom diet consist mainly of dairy products, from cows milk) I have met in west africa were in good health and I dont think they have more cardiac diseases vs the other ethnic groups
  • 0

#8 misterE

  • Registered User
  • 704 posts
  • -97
  • Location:Texas
  • no

Posted 07 April 2013 - 12:15 AM

I am not much aware with it but i heard that milk can be the reason for heart disease..




Right. There are tons of epidemiological studies showing that milk promotes atherosclerosis. The research indicates that not only is it the large amount of fat and cholesterol in milk, but that the milk proteins also have atherogenic effects as well. Of course the dairy-industry caught wind of this and funded their own studies showing milk has beneficial effects of the cardiovascular system.
  • 0

#9 matthewebbert

  • Registered User
  • 21 posts
  • -1
  • Location:USA

Posted 08 April 2013 - 06:28 PM

Right. There are tons of epidemiological studies showing that milk promotes atherosclerosis. The research indicates that not only is it the large amount of fat and cholesterol in milk, but that the milk proteins also have atherogenic effects as well. Of course the dairy-industry caught wind of this and funded their own studies showing milk has beneficial effects of the cardiovascular system.


Thank you for the information..
  • 0

#10 drtom

  • Registered User
  • 67 posts
  • 16
  • Location:Russia/Australia

Posted 09 April 2013 - 11:06 AM

Basically, I think MisterE has it right.
Milk is a growth-promoter. Fine, if you are a young, growing mammal.
If you are a mature human, milk is sending growth-signals to a body that should have stopped growing.
Think of the sub-classes of human that keep sending growth signals to their bodies after puberty...
1) Giants. Excess growth hormone causes premature development of diabetes, arthritis and, often, leads to premature death.
2) Bodybuilders who self-medicate with growth promoters. Noted for premature death, despite having "ultimate" physical development.
3) Sumo-wrestlers. rarely attain old-age in a country noted for longevity.

Now think of the opposite.
1) Laron-syndrome dwarfism. Defect in HGH receptor means they are "immune" to growth signals and so do not develop cancer.
2) Midgets. Often survive into extreme old-age.

Still feel like quaffing that litre of milk per day?
  • 0

#11 daouda

  • Registered User
  • 469 posts
  • 107
  • Location:France

Posted 09 April 2013 - 02:57 PM

Now think of the opposite.
1) Laron-syndrome dwarfism. Defect in HGH receptor means they are "immune" to growts signals and so do not develop cancer.
2) Midgets. Often survive into extreme old-age.


Dont you think this is a bit ridiculous?

So growth hormone which promotes a strong resilient body (withtin reasonable doses), but ultimately cancer, is correlated with a shorter lifespan.
Do we want longevity at all costs all also some good quality of life? It's been also noted in another thread that cutting one's testicle is a viable longevity measure... Would you rather be an eunuch midget than will live for 120 years or a strong good looking libidinous manly man that will only live to be 80?

Edited by daouda, 09 April 2013 - 03:02 PM.

  • 0

#12 drtom

  • Registered User
  • 67 posts
  • 16
  • Location:Russia/Australia

Posted 23 April 2013 - 08:02 AM

Now think of the opposite.
1) Laron-syndrome dwarfism. Defect in HGH receptor means they are "immune" to growts signals and so do not develop cancer.
2) Midgets. Often survive into extreme old-age.


Dont you think this is a bit ridiculous?

Why do you suggest that? That these people don't get cancer (in the case of the former) or live long lives (in the latter case) is fact.
I simply put them forward as examples of the opposite extreme of too much GH or IGF-1. (ie; low IGF-1 or a defective receptor for plasma IGF-1).

So growth hormone which promotes a strong resilient body (withtin reasonable doses), but ultimately cancer, is correlated with a shorter lifespan.
Do we want longevity at all costs all also some good quality of life? It's been also noted in another thread that cutting one's testicle is a viable longevity measure... Would you rather be an eunuch midget than will live for 120 years or a strong good looking libidinous manly man that will only live to be 80?


I'm not against people dosing themselves to the gills with whatever they want. But they should be aware of the risks.
I'm sure that not all GH-taking bodybuilders are fully aware of the risks. If they were, maybe they wouldn't do it.
Whether we want "good quality of life" or not is up to free will, in this case. Perhaps there are some (men) out there who would be prepared to sacrifce a testicle to try to extend their life. It's not up to you or me to say that's a ridiculous choice. It's their choice.
I'm also sure there are some midgets out there who are quite satisfied with their quality of life, thank you very much.
As for eunuch (sic) midget (I think you mean "eunuchoidal", but anyway...). Almost a contradiction in terms. Eunuchoidism usually leads to gigantism, as the long-bones fail to close after puberty and they keep growing.
That is why Italian castralto singers were extremely tall.
  • 0

#13 daouda

  • Registered User
  • 469 posts
  • 107
  • Location:France

Posted 23 April 2013 - 03:53 PM

Now think of the opposite.
1) Laron-syndrome dwarfism. Defect in HGH receptor means they are "immune" to growth signals and so do not develop cancer.
2) Midgets. Often survive into extreme old-age.

Still feel like quaffing that litre of milk per day?


So you established that midgets live longer thanks to a deficiency in the growth factors present in milk, which really isnt the argument that's going to prevent most men from "quaffing that litre of milk per day".
Of course all men are entitled to their own life choices, but I really don't think that this argument is convincing for the vast majority of them out there... (this being said I'd still be wary of too much milk consumption, it's just your argument that I find extremely weak)

About the poor dumb bodybuilders not being aware of the risks they're taking, you are so far off the mark.. most of them know exactly what they are doing, and consciously make the choice of an "extreme" lifestyle at the expense of their longevity and health in the long run.. Like you said it's not up to me or you to judge the choice ppl make about their own life and health.

I'm also sure there are some midgets out there who are quite satisfied with their quality of life, thank you very much.

How about stepping off your soap box, my point was clearly simply that if given the choice people would obviously rather choose NOT to be midgets...

As for eunuch (sic) midget (I think you mean "eunuchoidal", but anyway...). Almost a contradiction in terms. Eunuchoidism usually leads to gigantism, as the long-bones fail to close after puberty and they keep growing.
That is why Italian castralto singers were extremely tall.


You may be right about "eunuch midget" being incorrect, I'm french and in my language "eunuque" can be used as an adjective as well as a noun, unless I'm making a mistake which is highly possible. (However "Eunuch" is definitely correct as a noun of course http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eunuch ) .

But besides the fact that "eunuch midget" being syntaxically wrong and according to you a "contradiction in term" is totally irrelevant to my argument, your reasoning behind the latter assertion is extremely illogical on many levels.
According to you the thing that makes "eunuch" tall is their lack of testosterone (produced by testes, indeed castration obviously leads to radical hypogonadism) that prevents growth plates to fuse early enough. (it's possible and i admit I didn't know about that)
The thing that makes "laron dwarves" little is their genetic insensitivity to HGH (produced by the pituitary)
I don't see how both conditions are mutually exclusive in any way, and I doubt that the lack of T induced by castration (even soon after birth) could lead to tallness in the presence of a genetic insensitivity to HGH... Take a "laron dwarf" and cut off his balls, and there you've got your "eunuchoidal midget", that lucky dude blessed with an above average life span, thanks to his lack of Testosterone and HGH-promoted cancers. So much for "enuch" and "midget" being "almost a contradiction in terms" according to your flawed logic.

Edited by daouda, 23 April 2013 - 04:10 PM.

  • 0

#14 drtom

  • Registered User
  • 67 posts
  • 16
  • Location:Russia/Australia

Posted 25 April 2013 - 09:13 AM

My logic is not flawed.
Your grasping at such contrived circumstances as a person with Laron syndrome being castrated reveals the weakness of your argument.

My point remains (and this will be my last comment on the subject) : ALL growth signals that continue post-puberty are inherently risky, be they due to
1) extra GH or steroids taken I.V. or I.M. or orally,
2) gigantism, or
3) ad-lib feeding, which raises the level of plasma IGF-1.

To educate yourself, please read some recent work by Valter Longo et al.
  • 0

#15 daouda

  • Registered User
  • 469 posts
  • 107
  • Location:France

Posted 25 April 2013 - 05:12 PM

My point remains (and this will be my last comment on the subject) : ALL growth signals that continue post-puberty are inherently risky, be they due to
1) extra GH or steroids taken I.V. or I.M. or orally,
2) gigantism, or
3) ad-lib feeding, which raises the level of plasma IGF-1.

Your point is valid and has been well understood (it's actually vulgar knowledge nowadays that growth factors can promote cancers), on the other hand however, you apparently fail to understand MY point (that extra gH at reasonable doses in an aging person with low GH output can enhance quality of life and have effects that in a way can be considered as "antiaging", that measures that can jeopardize longevity can enhance quality of life, and that most people will probably choose a shrter but great quality life vs a longer life as a ball-less midget, making your argument against milk not convincing enough to allow yourself to conclude it with "Still feel like quaffing that litre of milk per day?" )

However

My logic is not flawed.
Your grasping at such contrived circumstances as a person with Laron syndrome being castrated reveals the weakness of your argument.

Not sure what you're talking about here.The logic behind your argumentation of "eunuch(oidal) midget" being "almost a contradiction in terms" is definitely flawed and i think i demonstrated it solidly. You however are failing to argument or demonstrate anything here besides stating "my logic is not flawed".

To educate yourself, please read some recent work by Valter Longo et al.

There you go with the condescending/patronizing tone once again (you must really, actually be a "dr" of medicine). I actually am familiar with V. Longo work, beleive it or not, and you quoting his name here rather proves once again that you totally missed my point.

Edited by daouda, 25 April 2013 - 05:26 PM.

  • 1

#16 misterE

  • Registered User
  • 704 posts
  • -97
  • Location:Texas
  • no

Posted 25 April 2013 - 10:39 PM

Besides the growth stimulating properties of the milk proteins, milk also contains lots of estrogen in it. Men today have on average, 1/3 the amount of sperm that men born the early 1900's had. And since 1987, American males have lost over 20% of their total testosterone level! It has been observed in Denmark also. It is well known that excess estrogen inhibits LH and FSH, thus decreasing testosterone and sperm production.
Milk is so loaded with estrogen that it strongly promotes prostate-cancer (and breast-cancer):

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
Abstract
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.
  • 1

#17 daouda

  • Registered User
  • 469 posts
  • 107
  • Location:France

Posted 25 April 2013 - 10:49 PM

Now THERE's a more convincing argument... But I wonder wether "organic" sourced milk has the same problem - are these estrogen in milk from all the estrogen and other synthetic hormones "industrial" milking cows are supplemented with, or are they present also in "organic" raised and fed cows? (I mean, during lactation human females are advised not to take estrogen/progestin based pills but progestin-only pills, because some of the oral estrogen do make it to the milk... And human milk from women not taking estrogen pills is NOT "loaded with estrogens" )

Without further information I'll personally take the above study rather as an additional reason not to EVER consume non-organic milk...

Edited by daouda, 25 April 2013 - 10:56 PM.

  • 0

#18 misterE

  • Registered User
  • 704 posts
  • -97
  • Location:Texas
  • no

Posted 26 April 2013 - 10:38 PM

Estrogen is naturally present in milk, particularly the milk-fat content. Organic is milk is much better than conventional milk, but there will still be estrogen present. These estrogens are supposed to be in the milk to help spur growth and accelerate the onset of adulthood.

With an increase in the amount of animal-products made available after the industrial-revolution, researchers began noticing that children began entering puberty earlier and earlier, they also began noticing a rapid average height increase. Researchers call this: The Secular Trend.

Animal-products increase the activity of hormones by lowering their binding-proteins, thus allowing these hormones to run wild and stimulate growth with no discretion.

Milk is extremely notorious for causing hormone-imbalance; it promotes hormone-imbalance in multiple ways. The hormonal-imbalance caused by chronic milk consumption and high-fat diets (insulin-resistance), promotes an environment in the body that encourages cancer.
  • -1

#19 nupi

  • Registered User
  • 1,530 posts
  • 106
  • Location:Switzerland

Posted 27 April 2013 - 07:55 AM

Or it could be related to the fact that people finally got enough protein which was unlikely to have been true before the industrial revolution... Witness what happened in Asia in the past 30 years, too.
  • -1

#20 misterE

  • Registered User
  • 704 posts
  • -97
  • Location:Texas
  • no

Posted 27 April 2013 - 05:48 PM


Or it could be related to the fact that people finally got enough protein which was unlikely to have been true before the industrial revolution... Witness what happened in Asia in the past 30 years, too.





Right, all the animal-protein (and calories) in the modern western-diet accelerates growth. Asians primarily lived on rice for thousands of years and only recently have adopted the rich western-diet. Now, not only are their children getting taller and enter puberty faster, but they are also developing diabetes, atherosclerosis, and cancers at a quick rate. This is directly caused by them abandoning their rice, in favor of richer foods.
  • 0

#21 nupi

  • Registered User
  • 1,530 posts
  • 106
  • Location:Switzerland

Posted 27 April 2013 - 06:03 PM

Or more likely due them adding a lot more sugar. Your beloved carbs are not as cut dry as you believe they are.
  • 0

#22 daouda

  • Registered User
  • 469 posts
  • 107
  • Location:France

Posted 27 April 2013 - 06:23 PM

http://birdflubook.c...10_PI_52_33.pdf
"Commercial milk", I guess is non-organic.
I'm still not convinced of the (normally low, milk is NOT supposed to be in the milk at high doses) estrogen content of organic milk being a problem, I mean our stomach would destroy some of it, and our liver is not that bad at flushing xenoestrogens, unless it gets ovewhelmed (and unless you've got too much beta-glucuronidase-producing intestinal bacteria deconjugating the glucuronated estrogens). I'd really like to see some factual data on the estrogen content of organic milk.
  • 0

#23 misterE

  • Registered User
  • 704 posts
  • -97
  • Location:Texas
  • no

Posted 28 April 2013 - 02:51 AM

Or more likely due them adding a lot more sugar.






Right, they eat less rice and noodles (starch) and more simple- sugars and fatty meats and cheese (bad-fats). In essence: a high-fat/high-sugar diet. Starch is the healthy carbohydrate. Sugar is the bad carbohydrate.

Edited by misterE, 28 April 2013 - 02:51 AM.

  • 0

#24 misterE

  • Registered User
  • 704 posts
  • -97
  • Location:Texas
  • no

Posted 28 April 2013 - 02:55 AM

I'd really like to see some factual data on the estrogen content of organic milk.


J Dairy Sci. 2010 Jun;93(6):2533-40.

Estrone and 17beta-estradiol concentrations in pasteurized-homogenized milk and commercial dairy products.

Pape-Zambito DA, Roberts RF, Kensinger RS.

Abstract

Some individuals fear that estrogens in dairy products may stimulate growth of estrogen-sensitive cancers in humans. The presence of estrone (E(1)) and 17beta-estradiol (E(2)) in raw whole cow's milk has been demonstrated. The objectives of this study were to determine if pasteurization-homogenization affects E(2) concentration in milk and to quantify E(1) and E(2) concentrations in commercially available dairy products. The effects of pasteurization-homogenization were tested by collecting fresh raw milk, followed by pasteurization and homogenization at 1 of 2 homogenization pressures. All treated milks were tested for milk fat globule size, percentages of milk fat and solids, and E(2) concentrations. Estrone and E(2) were quantified from organic or conventional skim, 1%, 2%, and whole milks, as well as half-and-half, cream, and butter samples. Estrone and E(2) were quantified by RIA after organic solvent extractions and chromatography. Pasteurization-homogenization reduced fat globule size, but did not significantly affect E(2), milk fat, or milk solids concentrations. Estrone concentrations averaged 2.9, 4.2, 5.7, 7.9, 20.4, 54.1 pg/mL, and 118.9 pg/g in skim, 1%, 2%, and whole milks, half-and-half, cream, and butter samples, respectively. 17Beta-estradiol concentrations averaged 0.4, 0.6, 0.9, 1.1, 1.9, 6.0 pg/mL, and 15.8 pg/g in skim, 1%, 2%, whole milks, half-and-half, cream, and butter samples, respectively. The amount of fat in milk significantly affected E(1) and E(2) concentrations in milk. Organic and conventional dairy products did not have substantially different concentrations of E(1) and E(2). Compared with information cited in the literature, concentrations of E(1) and E(2) in bovine milk are small relative to endogenous production rates of E(1) and E(2) in humans.
  • 0

#25 daouda

  • Registered User
  • 469 posts
  • 107
  • Location:France

Posted 28 April 2013 - 03:15 AM

Interesting! Good find MisterE. I also notice that "The amount of fat in milk significantly affected E(1) and E(2) concentrations in milk", and skim milk contains almost 3 times less E than whole milk (as you understand I'm not ready to ever give up completely on milk, but this is an extra incentive to limit its consumption for me, which I already started a year ago).

Edited by daouda, 28 April 2013 - 03:15 AM.

  • 0

#26 misterE

  • Registered User
  • 704 posts
  • -97
  • Location:Texas
  • no

Posted 28 April 2013 - 03:26 AM

Interesting! Good find MisterE. I also notice that "The amount of fat in milk significantly affected E(1) and E(2) concentrations in milk", and skim milk contains almost 3 times less E than whole milk (as you understand I'm not ready to ever give up completely on milk, but this is an extra incentive to limit its consumption for me, which I already started a year ago).

Why not soy-milk or almond-milk?
  • 0

#27 Hebbeh

  • Registered User
  • 1,218 posts
  • 523

Posted 28 April 2013 - 04:28 AM

Organic and conventional dairy products did not have substantially different concentrations of E(1) and E(2). Compared with information cited in the literature, concentrations of E(1) and E(2) in bovine milk are small relative to endogenous production rates of E(1) and E(2) in humans.


You must of missed that part. You're attempting to make much ado about nothing in your biased justification of your vegan diet.

And the fact that organic and conventional dairy have the same levels of estrogens (albeit minute insignificant amounts in the big scheme of things), proves that there is no residual estrogen beyond endogenous in conventional diary. And I can assure you kids eat less dairy and drink less milk now than when I grew up 50 years ago and fat kids were rare then whereas fat kids are common now....so milk is not the cause.

And of the minute insignificant amount of estrogen that is present in dairy, little to none of that will survive the digestive tract (not that it matters with the trivial amount present to begin with).

This study actually disproves your wild claims rather than reinforces them. It's a non issue.

edit: Another thing, when I was a kid 50 years ago, everybody drank whole milk whereas now everybody (that drinks milk) tends to use either low fat or fat free dairy...which has less estrogen content due to less fat. The fact that I see kids drinking less milk today along with the fact that the milk they are drinking is reduced fat rather than whole, is further proof that any possible dairy estrogens have no basis in the high level of modern childhood obesity. The only reason that diary consumption has increased is that human population levels have increased....not because kids are drinking twice as much milk.

Edited by Hebbeh, 28 April 2013 - 04:37 AM.

  • 3

#28 daouda

  • Registered User
  • 469 posts
  • 107
  • Location:France

Posted 28 April 2013 - 05:10 AM


Interesting! Good find MisterE. I also notice that "The amount of fat in milk significantly affected E(1) and E(2) concentrations in milk", and skim milk contains almost 3 times less E than whole milk (as you understand I'm not ready to ever give up completely on milk, but this is an extra incentive to limit its consumption for me, which I already started a year ago).

Why not soy-milk or almond-milk?

Because they're not milk. Also I'm french. You know, def not a surrender monkey but the cheese part got it right
  • 1

#29 daouda

  • Registered User
  • 469 posts
  • 107
  • Location:France

Posted 28 April 2013 - 02:22 PM

Hebbeh, Im a huge milk lover, but the study I posted above http://birdflubook.c...10_PI_52_33.pdf does seem to hint that even that small estrogen content in milk can have some effect at least in children. I really wont ever beleive that milk is evil (its the main part of the diet of many pastoral nomads that are not in sucha bad health) but all these xenoestrogens from our environment and diet add up, and may indeed be one of the reasons behind the decline of testosterone of the modern western man.
  • 0

#30 misterE

  • Registered User
  • 704 posts
  • -97
  • Location:Texas
  • no

Posted 28 April 2013 - 02:37 PM

And of the minute insignificant amount of estrogen that is present in dairy, little to none of that will survive the digestive tract (not that it matters with the trivial amount present to begin with).

This study actually disproves your wild claims rather than reinforces them. It's a non issue.


Cow milk contains potent estrogens (like estradiol and estrone), just not as much as the body makes daily. But does that still mean it’s OK to drink milk? Below is a study where the researchers gave men and children a pint of milk, as you can see, estrogen was significantly increased after consumption and testosterone, LH and FSH were all decreased, showing that the estrogens in milk were absorbed and had a direct effect on the endocrine-system.-- Drinking milk seems to mimic the hormonal profile found in men with obesity!







Pediatr Int. 2010 Feb;52(1):33-8.

Exposure to exogenous estrogen through intake of commercial milk produced from pregnant cows.


Maruyama K, Oshima T, Ohyama K.




Abstract


BACKGROUND:


Modern genetically improved dairy cows continue to lactate throughout almost the entire pregnancy. Therefore, recent commercial cow's milk contains large amounts of estrogens and progesterone. With regard to the exposure of prepubertal children to exogenous estrogens, the authors are particularly concerned about commercial milk produced from pregnant cows. The purpose of the present study was therefore to examine concentrations of serum and urine sex hormones after the intake of cow milk.



METHODS:


Subjects were seven men, six prepubertal children, and five women. The men and children drank 600 mL/m(2) of cow milk. Urine samples were collected 1 h before the milk intake and four times every hour after intake. In men the serum samples were obtained before and 15, 30, 45, 60, 90 and 120 min after milk intake. Women drank 500 mL of cow's milk every night for 21 days beginning on the first day of the second menstruation. In three successive menstrual cycles, the day of ovulation was examined using an ovulation checker.



RESULTS:


After the intake of cow milk, serum estrone (E1) and progesterone concentrations significantly increased, and serum luteinizing hormone, follicle-stimulating hormone and testosterone significantly decreased in men. Urine concentrations of E1, estradiol, estriol and pregnanediol significantly increased in all adults and children. In four out of five women, ovulation occurred during the milk intake, and the timing of ovulation was similar among the three menstrual cycles.



CONCLUSIONS:


The present data on men and children indicate that estrogens in milk were absorbed, and gonadotropin secretion was suppressed, followed by a decrease in testosterone secretion. Sexual maturation of prepubertal children could be affected by the ordinary intake of cow milk.

Edited by misterE, 28 April 2013 - 02:41 PM.

  • 0





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: milk

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users