Ariel Izcovich
| Attention! This article is over a year old and may contain outdated data | |
| September 15, 2015 3:47 p.m. | | Reading time: 1 minute |
| Attention! This article is over a year old and may contain outdated data |
| September 15, 2015 3:47 p.m. |
| | Reading time: 1 minute |
John Criniti
| Attention! This article is over a year old and may contain outdated data | |
| September 15, 2015 3:47 p.m. | | Reading time: 1 minute |
| Attention! This article is over a year old and may contain outdated data |
| September 15, 2015 3:47 p.m. |
| | Reading time: 1 minute |
Matias Manzotti
| Attention! This article is over a year old and may contain outdated data | |
| September 15, 2015 3:47 p.m. | | Reading time: 1 minute |
| Attention! This article is over a year old and may contain outdated data |
| September 15, 2015 3:47 p.m. |
| | Reading time: 1 minute |
Carlos Gonzalez Malla
| Attention! This article is over a year old and may contain outdated data | |
| September 15, 2015 3:47 p.m. | | Reading time: 1 minute |
| Attention! This article is over a year old and may contain outdated data |
| September 15, 2015 3:47 p.m. |
| | Reading time: 1 minute |
Hugo Catalano
| Attention! This article is over a year old and may contain outdated data | |
| September 15, 2015 3:47 p.m. | | Reading time: 1 minute |
| Attention! This article is over a year old and may contain outdated data |
| September 15, 2015 3:47 p.m. |
| | Reading time: 1 minute |
The relationship between the consumption of different types of food and its possible consequences on health are a recurring theme in the media. Not drinking milk, or consuming any of its derivatives, is one of the axes on which many of the recommendations that aim to achieve a "healthy" diet are focused (see, for example, here and here).
One of the fundamentals of the criticism is that the consumption of dairy products is not natural: the human being is the only species that eats this type of food during adult life. This argument would not leave room for discussion, but it is hardly convincing enough to decide the exclusion of dairy products from our diet.
Other foundations point to the fact that the consumption of this type of food increases the risk of diseases such as cancer or diabetes, at the same time that it weakens the bones with the consequent risk of fractures.
The evidence, however, says otherwise. Multiple scientific studies have been conducted to find out the impact of dairy on health in which patients with different levels of daily dairy consumption were analyzed, and the possibility of negative consequences was evaluated. The results of these studies (see technical document) show that there is no association between dairy consumption and the risk of cancer or fracture.
Even the possibility of bladder, stomach and colon cancer could be reduced. No association was found with cardiovascular disease, stroke, diabetes, or high blood pressure. The results of seven observational studies suggest that the only risk that might exist is a subtle increase in the risk of Parkinson's disease (for every 100,000 people who consume 200 grams of milk, 2 to 4 more people will develop Parkinson's disease relative to those who do not consume it).
According to the above, the evidence does not show the existence of an association between the consumption of dairy products and negative effects on health. Although there may be a subtle increase in the risk of Parkinson's disease, there may also be benefits that would offset that risk.
Here you can see the technical document with the comparative tables. This check was carried out according to the methodology of Chequeado Ciencia.
Did you like this note? Help us maintain this project.
JOIN
Show Comments64 Replies Comments64Pingbacks0September 15, 2015 at 4:22 pm
The argument “it is the only animal that consumes milk as an adult” is in itself quite stupid and leaves a lot of room for discussion. Man is also the only animal that grows lettuce and tomato and cooks the food and writes music and stupid things on the web and?
September 16, 2015 at 11:57 am
Have you ever seen an adult cat drink cow's milk?
September 17, 2015 at 4:09 pm
I have seen many cats drink cow's milk and achieve a beautiful hill of stomach worms that cause conjunctivitis as a side effect. Adult cats should NOT drink cow's milk. The “folkloric” tradition is not science. Whoever wants to know a scientific opinion completely bets on the consumption of dairy -and all animal protein- should watch the documentary "Forks over knives" https://goo.gl/w4mlCL
September 17, 2015 at 4:10 pm
Where it says "hill" it should say "colony"
December 8, 2015 at 12:49 pm
But hill still looked good.
September 18, 2015 at 11:39 am
“When somebody interprets something for you, they always have an agenda” Penn
http://rawfoodsos.com/2011/09/22/forks-over-knives-is-the-science-legit-a-review-and-critique/
September 19, 2015 at 11:55 pm
In the link that passed Joe78man indicates that one of the studies shown in the documentary (https://rawfoodsos.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/article_excerpt_screen_shot.jpg?w=620) at the end of everything has an opposite conclusion to the narrator's conclusion (rats that took 20% casein lived more than a year, while 15 that took 5% casein lived a year).
September 20, 2015 at 12:09 am
Barbarian your comment Coca Cola is bad and yet they do not prohibit it, Imagine how they are going to declare milk evil! It is a losing battle.
January 6, 2016 at 1:33 am
The argument overflows ignorance. The only animal that consumes milk from another species is man because he is the only one who knows how to get it. If we make milk available from any animal, almost any animal would consume it.
November 29, 2017 at 10:16 pm
I can get chlorine and that's not why I'm going to take it, just because we know how to do something doesn't mean it's good or healthy
September 15, 2015 at 10:59 pm
I share the link where the subject is discussed, very quickly, but to deepen you have the position of Dr. Fernando Uria
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpI74IDglFE
Greetings
September 15, 2015 at 11:41 pm
What a good idea to make a series demystifying some of the sometimes even dangerous nonsense that is becoming popular lately in relation to health and medicine!
September 20, 2015 at 12:08 am
They are not silly, the mild milk is bad yxej, in deep China there is no breast cancer, and they don't drink milk either... that is, 2+2=4, and believe or burst. ..
It is a half check because there is already scientific evidence that milk even disqualifies, but of course, how are they going to drop that bomb?
September 21, 2015 at 11:26 am
and I suppose you are a nutritionist, or at least part of some health rut so that you can prove your theories with studies
January 6, 2016 at 1:35 am
Partial knowledge makes you expert in one subject and ignorant in all others.
September 16, 2015 at 11:12 am
I don't quite understand the people at Chequeado who publish these things too well, because they have an extremely biased and reductionist view of the problem of what a "healthy" or "balanced" diet is. The problem goes far beyond whether milk is bad or good for health, the problem is that it is not ecologically sustainable, it is fostered by rude myths created by the very industry that sells it (eating a broccoli is much better and much healthier than drinking a glass of milk to get calcium, huh), and also, and I understand that for many this may not be an argument, in order to drink milk you had to drip it off a calf first. In other words, to serve the interest of humanity that wants to drink a glass of milk, which does not provide any considerable nutrient and cannot be obtained in other ways, a cow had to be locked up in a feedlot and a few calves killed. Why don't we do an analysis of the conditions in which the dairy cow was raised? Surely the poor cow was in a feedlot, they gave her antibiotics like they give to all the animals that are inside a feedlot (because since they are not in natural conditions, and they don't walk, and they don't graze, the bugs obviously get sick!). Let's say, to be generous, that there is no direct relationship between milk consumption and damage to health. And everything that had to happen for that glass of milk to reach your table doesn't count? What is a "healthy life" according to the terms of this science?
September 16, 2015 at 10:54 pm
Your argument is excellent!
September 17, 2015 at 6:21 pm
It is not true that the cows are necessarily in a feedlot or that the calves have to be killed, you start from erroneous bases for the analysis. In any case, what could be questioned if this were the case is the production system, not the consumption of milk, and that is a different issue that can also be discussed, but it seems to me that it is not the point
September 18, 2015 at 11:44 am
Veganism is a philosophy supported by fallacies, partial truths, pure lies, subjectivities. There is no objectivity and if there is something that I could see in each reading published by them, or arguments in debates, it is that they have an absolute ignorance of the level of knowledge they have of nature and biology. That is to say, they do not know that they know very little about what they are talking about, and that is why they say so many nonsense with such certainty.
September 24, 2015 at 5:10 pm
First of all I clarify that I am not vegan, although I consume very little milk (practically nothing). Nor do I accept generalizations such as "vegans know nothing", because as far as I know, most people (vegan or not) believe that eating cereals for breakfast is a good thing, that nothing happens if you drink Coca Cola, and an equally long series of nonsense such as the impossibility of showing direct correlations between two phenomena and thus drawing absurd conclusions, or in any case of doubtful reliability. But hey, every crazy with the theme of him, I kept drinking milk.
November 21, 2015 at 6:24 pm
Dear, veganism is a philosophy sustained by empathy, in this case towards all sentient beings... nothing more, nothing less. I recognize you, however, that the movement sometimes uses counterproductive methods (for example, giving too much emphasis to the subject HEALTH), making people who are not internalized in the subject, not have a very clear concept. I invite you to google “speciesism” and watch the documentary “Earthlings”… not to become vegan, but to REALLY see what veganism means. Greetings.
September 19, 2015 at 12:23 pm
What a way to mix the themes, please reread your comment! The topic of the article is whether it is harmful to drink adult milk. If you have read carefully, it is indicated that THE EVIDENCES are not enough to affirm such a thing. Of course, this is SCIENCE, so we will have to wait for more studies to confirm or disprove the hypotheses.
September 24, 2015 at 5:13 pm
Yes, precisely the problem of the article is exactly that: that it does not evaluate the rest of the variables that enter into the concept of “healthy life”. Oh, and science also says the wrong things, and much more so in the field of food, where there are obvious conflicts of interest. If you have any questions, look at the FDA standards for food approval...
January 5, 2016 at 6:25 pm
The question is precise: “is it bad to drink milk after infancy?” The problem of ecological sustainability is not the one addressed in this report, so your arguments are not relevant. One must also weigh the cost-benefit ratio, because for you a certain moral conception -your veganism- has to prevail over food needs or the subsistence of regional economies (particularly those that develop around the dairy industry), but others do not have to share that criteria. In principle, if broccoli is a better source of calcium than dairy - its bioavailability would have to be discussed - it is not the subject of the discussion, but if this premise is true, it would not imply that dairy products are bad per se either. Regarding nutrients, of course there are multiple ways to obtain them; that doesn't add anything. Regarding what had to happen, I tell you that human development always has repercussions on the ecosystem. From the manufacture of the computer from which you write to the use of the transport in which you travel, all of this implies the exploitation of natural resources and the emission of pollutants; With your argument, all kinds of human interference with the ecosystem should be prohibited, because even agriculture involves the killing of rodents.
October 19, 2016 at 10:21 pm
Excellent review - I agree.
September 16, 2015 at 3:32 pm
che and that of enslaving animals for the consumption of products that add almost nothing to the diet but by custom and economic interests it is sustained, it is also a purely human activity...
September 17, 2015 at 6:23 pm
enslave animals? It seems to me that the byproduct of watching too many Disney movies is to attribute human characteristics to animals and mistake them for people. Las Vacas Vaqueras is not a documentary, it is a cartoon.
September 19, 2015 at 12:24 pm
Ché but that is not the topic analyzed here…
September 16, 2015 at 3:33 pm
How to Fix Ntoskrnl.exe Missing or Corrupt Error http://t.co/VXWXyK1Z
— sysbdmn Thu Aug 16 11:33:08 +0000 2012
And do you remember the myth that glyphosate could be related to some types of cancer? haha people can be very prejudiced
October 13, 2015 at 10:44 am
Yes, prejudiced and ignorant.
http://www.ecoagricultor.com/finalmente-la-oms-confirma-que-el-glifosato-nos-esta-matando/
October 14, 2015 at 10:36 pm
The WHO did not confirm anything, the article is bogus. He put it on the “needs further investigation” list along with mate and coffee.
November 10, 2015 at 9:08 am
You ignore too much about the subject. http://www.lavaca.org/notas/agrotoxicos-vs-salud-los-informes-oficiales/
September 16, 2015 at 5:57 pm
What fonts are you using? Precisely many of the criteria that raise the milk being bad are based on the fact that the dairy industry is so powerful to make the statements (not to mention the amount of advertising on TV saying "YOU HAVE TO drink milk to have adequate calcium")
September 18, 2015 at 9:39 am
Poor analysis and dangerous. They don't talk about lactose intolerance, casein intolerance, insulin response, fermentation, cancer etc. The human evidence is more convincing than observational studies. We did not evolve by drinking milk. Milk that is not breast milk is poison for our body. Chequeado.com comes back.
September 19, 2015 at 12:37 pm
Didn't you read the note? At the moment, there is NO evidence that post-infancy milk consumption is harmful. Lactose intolerance has to do with each person's genetics; allergy to milk (to casein protein), is just an allergy like thousands; etc. There is no evidence that they cause cancer. I'm sorry. And finally, science is based on the observation of the studied phenomena (read Scientific Method). If non-breast milk were "poison", the life expectancy of humans would have plummeted a long time ago, something that does not happen in reality. More science friend, less urban legends.
September 20, 2015 at 12:13 am
It has not made you think because there are sea diseases that never before in the rotary,? Obviously not all milk is to blame. I'll tell you that there is a lot of scientific evidence that speaks ill of being milk, but the lobbyists are like that, stronger and they silence you. Believe or burst or investigate. Luck!
September 22, 2015 at 10:43 am
I share, the studies are paid for by those who have an economic interest, no one is going to pay for a study to show "evidence" that what they want to sell you causes diseases.
October 1, 2015 at 5:51 am
Jorge, your article below is not much more solid than this note, every reader should underline the following words in your publication: "It is usually related", "The possible contribution", "a possible association".. all assumptions, that is smoke
October 8, 2015 at 11:21 am
Jeremías, one thing doesn't take away from the other. I mean, I'm sorry.
October 8, 2015 at 11:40 am
It is also curious that "Jeremias" cannot respond to your comment. you have authoritative privileges.
January 5, 2016 at 4:43 pm
Completely agree with you Aja! I wanted to say the same thing… everyone asks if they want to consume milk or not… but the milk has to come from responsible production, because we cannot support a criminal, violent and ruthless industry such as the milk industry .
September 22, 2015 at 4:28 pm
Again, the issue is whether milk is harmful after infancy, for now, there are no studies that conclusively prove it. What is this scientific evidence you speak of? What do they show? Where? In what population? When? Who are the authors? Where and when were they published? If those "lobbies" that you say are "stronger and silence you"... how is it possible then that you have found out about those "many scientific evidences that speak ill of being milk"? It is not about believing, this is not a matter of faith (as it obviously is for you). It's about knowing. Either you know or you don't know. And because the results of existing research do not match your beliefs (I repeat, beliefs), it does not mean that they are not true or accuse them of being false. Luck!
September 23, 2015 at 10:20 am
I would need to be able to publish an article to be able to answer your questions. Based on your beliefs in those studies, your conclusion is: "The evidence does not show an association between dairy consumption and negative health effects."
The possible contribution of milk to the development of cancer:
Insulin-like growth factor type 1 (IGF-1). The milk is designed to promote growth: From calf to bull in a few months. This growth is produced in part by its activation of IGF-1, to a greater extent than other proteins such as meat. This increase in IGF-1 is usually related to an increased risk of cancer.
Studies:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15054433).http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16684388
Autoimmune diseases and allergies
There are studies that find a possible association with type 1 diabetes, for example, due to an immune response to certain milk proteins.
Studies:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10866042 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9737801
Acne
The relationship between milk and acne.
Study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20692602
You can also read the LUND University Researcher, General Manager of NutriScience Education and Consulting. Expert on nutritional issues in Evolutionary Feeding talking about dairy and humans. To Doctor Pedro Carrera Bastos, Doctorate in Nutrition and with an Official Master's Degree in Human Nutrition.
And so I could go on until I answer all your questions. Milk presents elements unknown to our body in evolutionary terms. And there is conflicting evidence to support your conclusion. This is dangerous because you are a health professional. Luck
September 25, 2015 at 9:06 am
Carlitos: Not just Coca-Cola. All the big brands do it… Keep analyzing paid observational studies and the conclusions will be what they want.
http://www.economiadigital.es/es/notices/2015/09/coca-cola-admite-pagos-a-cientificos-e-institucións-sanitarias-76873.php
September 22, 2015 at 10:19 am
The article is based on epidemiological studies. These only establish the relationship between the causes of the disease and the influence of these. The lack of evidence is not evidence that it does not cause diseases. You must not only read "The scientific method" but also know how to interpret it. Observational studies do not provide sufficient evidence but are of poor quality or contradictory. (Read Levels of evidence and degrees of recommendation) Contradictory? Because nutrition experts and researchers at Harvard University, free from political pressure and industry groups, state that: "a high consumption of these foods significantly increases the risks of prostate cancer and ovarian cancer"? There is no nutrition evidence. Yes, there are millions of years of evolution without consuming milk. Less directed science and more common sense.
September 19, 2015 at 8:22 pm
It's a super interesting check. Others, drink 3 liters of water a day, or swimming is the most complete sport, or you should not do weights until after 16 years because it stops growth in height
September 20, 2015 at 11:46 am
Hello people, I leave you a note about the "new" (already several years old) nutritional pyramid that they drew at the Harvard School of Public Health, as opposed to the one that the United States government had drawn... It seems that, between other things, they suggest that the one taken out by the government would be influenced by industrial interests, among others, in the issue of lactose... which they say: -although it is not proven that milk helps with osteoporosis, it has been found related to the development of other health problems.-http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy-eating-plate/translations/spanish/
September 20, 2015 at 8:41 pm
I think that the first check should be to investigate what really contains the sachet of what we buy with the name of "milk". And see if that product is or is not harmful to humans. What comes out of the cow and what comes to our table are different things. And we call them both the same. It seems to me that we start from an error. Cordially
September 23, 2015 at 2:07 pm
7 Reasons to Avoid Dairyhttp://www.thenextrace.net/7-reasons-to-evitar-los-lacteos/
September 30, 2015 at 9:07 pm
In the first place, I am neither against nor in favor of drinking milk, I particularly love it, but although there is scientific evidence both to recommend it and not to do it, then I think that, for now, it has to be seen in each person the cost-benefit ratio and not make fundamentalist decisions for a possible but unlikely harm in the face of a proven benefit. On the other hand, let us not forget that both milk and most foods today contain pesticides (which are believed to be the cause of Parkinson's disease in some people), and therefore it is necessary to see if what causes the problem is some natural component of the food or contaminating elements.
October 7, 2015 at 3:50 pm
And of animal suffering? It is not talked about, only if it is good for us or bad for us
October 14, 2015 at 4:05 pm
recommendation to drink milk from smaller animals such as goats or sheep that have a similar weight to humans
November 24, 2015 at 9:34 pm
A total ignorance the note. It is noted that there is a lack of study and reading. I am going to refute the barbarities he says by giving two facts: 1) “The China Study”. It's a book, yes. There is a book that is based on Chinese nutrition, the relationship between dairy and cancer. It should be required reading. 2) Documentary “forks over knifes”, summarizes the previous book and is a real, solid and irrefutable proof of the nutrition of the human being. It is in Youtube..
I hope someone reads it, even if it is to know and stop spreading garbage information.
May 23, 2016 at 7:31 pm
'1) “The China Study” '… and then I stopped reading. “The China Study” is a good example of what misrepresentation and concealment of data can achieve.
December 25, 2015 at 1:02 am
There is enough scientific evidence that supports that dairy products are harmful to health, I think they have not investigated enough, in general there are many sources that say they are good but in reality they are studies supported by the dairy industry.
I leave you some serious information about it.
http://www.pcrm.org/health/diets/vegdiets/health-concerns-about-dairy-products
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/149/10/925.full.pdf+html
http://www.webislam.com/articulos/30293-el_cancer_y_los_productos_lactos.html
http://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?pid=S0212-16112011000400011&script=sci_abstract&tlng=es
July 2, 2016 at 8:23 am
Thanks for the references, it is good to provide concrete documentation. The Scielo article refers to changes in the diet of patients diagnosed with cancer and not to the incidence of nutrition on the existence of cancer. The text makes little mention of the harmful effects of milk, beyond saying that whole milk increases fat intake (today it is easy to drink low-fat milk). It does not examine the health benefits and drawbacks of milk. In short, it does not seem to me an article that clearly presents harmful effects of milk on health.
January 1, 2016 at 10:16 pm
First congratulations for the initiative. Regarding this check-up, the final statement they make draws attention: "the evidence does not show the existence of an association between the consumption of dairy products and negative effects on health." There is so much scientific information that affirms the opposite. Is it the result of pressure from the powerful dairy industry oligopolies? I only ask you to review a single work and you will see that this statement is irresponsible at the least:
Bodo C. Melnik, Milk – The promoter of chronic Western diseases, Medical Hypotheses, Volume 72, Issue 6, June 2009, Pages 631-639, ISSN 0306-9877, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. mehy.2009.01.008.(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306987709000073)
January 5, 2016 at 5:17 pm
No one believes the story that milk is good anymore! That's old! We are FRUGivorous! Exist
February 3, 2016 at 11:57 am
It's an enzyme thing - 70% (approx.) of European descendants have developed the enzyme to treat milk as adults. It's a dominant gene, so unless you're a native Indian, Japanese or Chinese (etc. .) – most likely you do not have any problem with consuming milk and dairy products. As we live in a country where the vast majority of the people are of European descent – there are things that must be taken with tweezers from the oriental theories that are very popular today in day as much as the studies of Brazil, Bolivia and other Latin American countries where the population cut-off is very different.
February 11, 2016 at 12:43 pm
The article is wrong, basically they should have "checked" the research of the books on the subject against milk. Know the historical moment where the hypotheses arise, the tests on rats, the epidemiological verifications (Africa, China vs dairy countries). Even Harvard ended up suggesting a nutritional pyramid without milk, see the basics and track the research. This article ignores the history of scientific evidence, the interests that moved the different US industries to attack this nutritional information, subjectivity and basically the information we have today. The diet with 20% protein of animal origin brings problems… compared to what? with vegetarian diets... the comparative evidence shows that the recommendation to reduce meat (which was recently seen in the WHO) as well as to reduce dairy... favors people's health and the incidence of pathologies... Now if one compares a carnivore that moves its protein intake between dairy and meat… I continue to measure animal proteins… My diet reduces meat and dairy based on the evidence compared between the population and the incidence of pathologies. I recommend a book “The study of China”… because this milk debate is ancient history…. once they see the investigations, it would be interesting for them to review the subject for the population. It often happens that one makes mistakes when reading the conclusions of the investigations and not the methodological designs. Atte. Bachelor of Nutrition Emanuel Fucaraccio. Registration mat 1450/2.
February 11, 2016 at 12:56 pm
From his article, what seems manipulative to me is to redirect myself to people who are not health professionals and talk about not consuming dairy products to show that they are IGNORANT people who hold that information. Redirect to pages of health professionals, medical centers that support this, or even medical books and especially books written by scientists.
April 15, 2016 at 7:37 pm
There are many people who have lactose intolerance and do not know it. Because the doctors don't know. That is why in Argentina there are almost no lactose-free or low-lactose products, unlike…Chile! and the other developed countries. Here your stomach hurts, you have gas, diarrhea and we blame anything else. Dairy companies put out heavy publicity in the media, so none of them publish anything against milk. I took the test and I have a partial intolerance, acquired as an adult, of course. And if there aren't more low-lactose products, it's because the government looks the other way, but we citizens don't demand it.
May 13, 2016 at 2:18 am
There is one thing I don't understand. Here they say that "the ONLY risk that could exist is a subtle increase in the risk of Parkinson's disease" while in the same cited document they also add the risks of ovarian and prostate cancer.
May 23, 2016 at 7:51 pm
Apply to milk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plQVuTc-T7k
We highly value the opinion of our community of readers and we are always in favor of plural debate and the exchange of data and ideas. In this line, it is important for us to create a space of respect and care, so please bear in mind that we will not publish comments with:- insults, aggression or hate messages, - disinformation that could be dangerous for others, - information personal- promotion or sale of products. Thank you very much. Cancel reply
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *
It is false that the broom is held stationary by the position of the Earth's axis Last February 18 began to circulate (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here) on Facebook the following sentence : "According to NASA, today is the only day that the broom will remain stationary due to the position of the Earth's axis." This is not the first time this idea has circulated [...] What are sweeteners? The nutritional recommendation, as always, is to carefully read the labels, find out about the different sweeteners (in the broad sense of the word) and try to moderately manage your intake not to exceed the recommended limits.