No link between milk and increased cholesterol according to new study of 2 million people

[Northerner]

Regular consumption of milk is not associated with increased levels of cholesterol, according to new research.

A study published in the International Journal of Obesity looked at three large population studies and found that people who regularly drank high amounts of milk had lower levels of both good and bad cholesterol, although their BMI levels were higher than non-milk drinkers. Further analysis of other large studies also suggests that those who regularly consumed milk had a 14% lower risk of coronary heart disease.

The team of researchers took a genetic approach to milk consumption by looking at a variation in the lactase gene associated with digestion of milk sugars known as lactose.

The study identified that having the genetic variation where people can digest lactose was a good way for identifying people who consumed higher levels of milk.

No link between milk and increased cholesterol according to new study of 2 million people

Regular consumption of milk is not associated with increased levels of cholesterol, according to new research of nearly 2 million people.

www.sciencedaily.com

 

[Drummer]

I don't understand why they bothered - a couple of checks on eggs on a small scale showed that the cholesterol in eggs doesn't result in an increase in cholesterol levels because it is not absorbed - they 'tagged' it by feeding something to the chickens. Still - it does put one more nail in the coffin of the dietary advice given since Ancel Keyes decided to bend the facts to his will.

 

[Deleted member 21371]

The study shows the population with the lactose tolerant gene have lower cholesterol generally.
Lactose intolerance is a recessive trait.
But we were all lactose intolerant until we actually started farming, and dairy farming, then quite quickly the gene started to be bred out.
So, out of any group, you would expect more people to be lactose tolerant.
And lower cholesterol is a good survival trait, so again you would expect a higher number to have lower cholesterol.
So that will confound a simple study of numbers like this.

The study will also be confounded further by people like me.
I used to drink a lot of fresh milk, several glasses a day.
Full fat, 3.5% Until I found out I had high cholesterol and a high BMI.
Now I drink low fat or skimmed, to help keep my cholesterol down.
Which the study shows is true. Higher fat dairy increases your cholesterol,
Lower fat is better.
But, I also make a lot of other healthy choices, go to the gym, eat much healthier options generally, but I still keep milk in my diet as it's a very healthy option and something I will keep there, (in moderation, and in low fat options) compared to some drinks like fruit juices that I don't touch anymore.
So, I'll be a hopefully) healthy milk drinker, with lower cholesterol then someone who eats junk food, and fizzy drinks, and doesn't drink milk.
Maybe it's not all the milk, it's in part to the lifestyle of people who choose to drink milk, and then what type of milk they drink, and why?

 

[Deleted member 21371]

I don't understand why they bothered - a couple of checks on eggs on a small scale showed that the cholesterol in eggs doesn't result in an increase in cholesterol levels because it is not absorbed - they 'tagged' it by feeding something to the chickens. Still - it does put one more nail in the coffin of the dietary advice given since Ancel Keyes decided to bend the facts to his will.

I think they showed it was the saturated fats that raised it the most,
But, the study still suggested 3 or 4 a week were ok.
I guess it depends on your overall consumption of anything else that raises it.

 

[pm133]

I think they showed it was the saturated fats that raised it the most,
But, the study still suggested 3 or 4 a week were ok.
I guess it depends on your overall consumption of anything else that raises it.

I'm not really sure there's any value in much of this kind of research.
They rarely prove causal links. Instead they use weasely, largely meaningless phrases such as "Thing 1 is linked to Thing 2". This routinely seems to just be an exercise in statistical analysis which is rarely of any use.

For example, we've had research which says that a glass of red wine a day is good for you, and other research which says it's bad for you. This sort of thing just ends up giving science a bad name. Statistics can almost always be manipulated to tell you whatever you want it to. There's a ton of people out there who routinely present an increase in something as actually being a decrease for example through statistical sleight of hand.

For me, this type of research doesn't fall under the name of science.

 

[Deleted member 21371]

I'm not really sure there's any value in much of this kind of research.
They rarely prove causal links. Instead they use weasely, largely meaningless phrases such as "Thing 1 is linked to Thing 2". This routinely seems to just be an exercise in statistical analysis which is rarely of any use.

For example, we've had research which says that a glass of red wine a day is good for you, and other research which says it's bad for you. This sort of thing just ends up giving science a bad name. Statistics can almost always be manipulated to tell you whatever you want it to. There's a ton of people out there who routinely present an increase in something as actually being a decrease for example through statistical sleight of hand.

For me, this type of research doesn't fall under the name of science.

I entirely agree.
It's now just someone trawling through others data, picking and choosing bits of information they can randomly tie together.
No research, and no understanding of the data in most cases.
And then that's compounded by selective publishing, (and reading) that further picks out one or two takeaways to prove whatever theory they believe.

 

[pm133]

I entirely agree.
It's now just someone trawling through others data, picking and choosing bits of information they can randomly tie together.
No research, and no understanding of the data in most cases.
And then that's compounded by selective publishing, (and reading) that further picks out one or two takeaways to prove whatever theory they believe.

This is one of the side effects of using publications as a measure of success of a researcher and to decide future funding unfortunately. It promotes this attitude of publish at all costs regardless of the worth of the work.

Health isn't unique in this regard. My area was Chemistry (theoretical stuff mainly) and the volume of useless rubbish published is just staggering. The last I'd read was that more than half of all published results were not repeatable. Compounds that other people can't make, experimental results which nobody can replicate, calculation results which others can't reproduce and a wide variety of other things like that. This happens in all standards of journal from the very worst to the most prestigious.

So glad I'm away from all of this now.

 

[mikeyB]

The natural (historical) state of humans is lactose intolerance after infancy, in the same way as is in all other animals including primates, of which we are one. This is because continuing lactation in the mother prevents producing another child. The child must be weaned and eating other foods to survive. This allows the mother to produce a further child.

As has been mentioned, because milk is so nutritious, that the upgrade from hunter nomadic lives, we learned to farm animals. Cows produce lots of milk, so this became a foodstuff, gradually, because cheese has a lower level of lactose. Some hard cheeses, like Parmesan are very low in lactose. In that way we became more tolerant, and the gene controlling lactose intolerance was suppressed, and this became the norm in the western world.

In China, the majority of folk are normal humans - that is, lactose intolerant. There is no milk or cream in Chinese food, and for sure don’t drink cow’s milk.

In the western world, we are fighting nature by continuing to drink milk throughout our lives. This didn’t matter until the 20th century, because life expectancy was so low. Indeed. Life expectancy has doubled since the middle part of the last century. And that marks the time when we noticed folk dying from heart problems. Of course smoking was doing most of that, but what was causing the rising cholesterol levels? Was it the burgers, or the pint sized milk shakes? Nobody knows.

With regard to the study, the selected group showing benefit had a lactase gene present, in other words a selected group. Worthless as producing dietary advice, because most humans don’t have such a gene. Just a suppressed lactose intolerance gene.

I only drink milk after or during a hypo. I don’t drink milk otherwise, neither in tea nor coffee. That’s not because I’m lactose intolerant, I’m not. I just prefer tea to taste of tea, and the same with coffee.