If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Oh Good Grief.
Skim milk is the latest sacred cow to be (possibly) put out to
pasture. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080102/...nfat_cancer_dc EXCERPTS The consumption of low-fat or nonfat milk may increase the risk of the malignancy, according to the results of two studies published in the American Journal of Epidemiology. .... Dr. Song-Yi Park, from the University of Hawaii in Honolulu, and colleagues, analyzed data from subjects enrolled in the Multiethnic Cohort Study. This study, conducted between 1993 and 2002, included adults between 45 and 75 years old, were primarily from five different ethnic or racial groups, and lived in California or Hawaii. A total of 82,483 men from the study completed a quantitative food frequency questionnaire and various factors, such as weight, smoking status, and education levels were also noted, Park's group said. During an average follow-up period of 8 years, 4,404 men developed prostate cancer. There was no evidence that calcium or vitamin D from any source increased the risk of prostate cancer. This held true across all racial and ethnic groups. In an overall analysis of food groups, the consumption of dairy products and milk were not associated with prostate cancer risk, the authors found. Further analysis, however, suggested that low-fat or nonfat milk did increase the risk of localized tumors or non- aggressive tumors, while whole milk decreased this risk. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Oh Good Grief.
Take a look at the exact analysis - do not take their word that their
analysis is accurate. I'm not suggesting that their statistics are wrong, but that their reasoning is. For example, did the lowfat/nofat group consume the same amount of fat overall? If so, they were likely consuming more unsaturated fatty acids, and the molecular-level evidence makes clear that a fatty acid that is very common in many peoples' diets these days, linoleic acid, is basically a cancer initiator as well as a "cancer fuel" (through metabolization). Otherwise, there is the possibility that fat stores are being tapped by the body (if on a low fat diet), but the key point I would make is that a no fat milk has no (or hardly any) lipids, and the lipids cause the cancer - there's nothing else in the no fat milk that is different from full fat milk that could cause more cancers. As usual, a food item is being blamed for something it simply can't do. Rather, it's the dietary context, and that is something these "epidemiological" (statistical) studies are not capable of addressing. It's also crucial to distinguish between low fat milk and no fat milk (due to what is known about lipids). Did they do that? It doesn't sound like they did. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|