 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / May 2005A Diet High In Milk May Cut Heart Disease And Stroke Risk
"A diet rich in milk does not increase the risk of heart disease and stroke, and may even be protective, concludes research in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050524001009.htm > "A diet rich in milk does not increase the risk of heart disease and > stroke, and may even be protective, concludes research in the > Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health." > > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050524001009.htm So one avoids heart disease and stroke while just maybe increasing the risk of getting ear infections; strep throats; diabetes; and asthma / lung congestion when drinking cow's milk. > > "A diet rich in milk does not increase the risk of heart disease and > > stroke, and may even be protective, concludes research in the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the risk of getting ear infections; strep throats; diabetes; and asthma / > lung congestion when drinking cow's milk. I'm suprised that you would post a crap study like this. It has "Dairy Job" written all over it. First, a correlation of food intake to disease risk must be MUCH larger than 665 subjects to be meaningful. Second, the article writer says "a random sample of the surviving men in 2000" shows the majority of THOSE (NOT the majority of survivors, just the majority of those randomly SELECTED *from* that group) had switched to low-fat milk. It's very bad science to take a subset of your original population and suggest a health benefit based on a feature of that group but avoid measuring a similar trait in the rest of your subjects. In this case, we don't know what percentage of the total group was ALSO drinking skim milk already. It gets worse. We also don't know what random factor was used in this "analysis." Was it 1-in-5 or 1-in-10? If it's 1-in-10, we're talking about 44 total subjects ((44=665-225)*.1) who switched to low fat milk and avoided having a heart attack DURING THE STUDY PERIOD. But what was the cardiovascular health of these survivors at the END of the study period? Why, I don't think anyone had anything to say about that. No triglycerides, cholesterol, homocystine, CRP, oxygen, nothing. It doesn't seem like anyone was too curious to find out, does it? We aren't even told whether the survivors were in the bottom quartile of the age group, so how do we know the survivors were not 5-10 years *behind* their less fortunate croaking buddies on the developmental curve of heart disease? Care to take a guess? The sole basis for this "milk may cut heart disease risk" garbage is simply the fact that some skim milk drinkers didn't die as early of heart disease as others. The headline is not only irresponsible journalism, it's an example of junk science. PeterB > > > "A diet rich in milk does not increase the risk of heart disease > and [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > PeterB I do not believe that this study is a "dairy job". This is the title and the authors: Milk consumption, stroke, and heart attack risk: evidence from the Caerphilly cohort of older men P C Elwood1, J J Strain2, Paula J Robson2, Ann M Fehily3, Janie Hughes4, Janet Pickering4 and Andy Ness5 1 Visiting Professor, University of Ulster, Coleraine, Northern Ireland 2 Northern Ireland Centre for Food and Health (NICHE), University of Ulster 3 Consultant Nutritionist 4 University of Wales College of Medicine, Cardiff, UK 5 University of Bristol, Bristol, UK This is the only industry ties I could find on any of the authors: J.J. Sean Strain, Ph.D., Northern Ireland Center for Diet and Health, University of Ulster, Northern Ireland. Research on genetic aspects of nutrition and toxicology supported in part by the Heinz Institute of Nutritional Sciences and CanTox. (J. Amer. Coll. Nutr. 2001;20:119-28) Last time I looked Heinz was not involved in the Dairy industry. I think the crap around here is the anti-milk stuff. TC >> > "A diet rich in milk does not increase the risk of heart disease > and [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > PeterB PeterB, the study is a simple observational study, with all the weaknesses that that entails. Even the news item mentions one possible confounder i.e. that those drinking more milk had a higher overall energy intake, which might suggest a more physically active subgroup. I am thus also a little surprised at the strength of the concluding statement of the paper that "every effort should be made to restore it to its rightful place in a healthy diet". I suppose, as expert nutritionists, familiar with ALL the evidence, they may have other reasons for backing this quite natural and complex food (which, in case you have forgotten, means something included in the diet, rather than consumed as a pill). But what I mainly wanted to point out that this is exactly the same kind of observational study that Pauling and many others used to claim spectacular effects from taking large quantities of vitamins, ones that have yet to be confirmed by prospective randomized studies. The latter have been almost universally negative so far, as well as hinting at the possibility of harmful effects, at least with some antioxidant vitamins such as vitamin E and beta-carotene. I look forward to your dissection of studies that don't challenge your beliefs. Peter Moran George, I'm suprised you would post a crap study like this. It has "Dairy Job" written all over it. First, a correlation of food intake to disease risk must be MUCH larger than 665 subjects to be meaningful. Second, the article writer says "a random sample of the surviving men in 2000" shows the majority of THOSE (NOT the majority of survivors, just the majority of those randomly SELECTED *from* that group) had switched to low-fat milk. It's very bad science to take a subset of your original population and suggest a health benefit based on a feature of that group but avoid measuring a similar trait in the rest of your subjects. In this case, we don't know what percentage of the total group was ALSO drinking skim milk already. It gets worse. We also don't know what random factor was used in this "analysis." Was it 1-in-5 or 1-in-10? If it's 1-in-10, we're talking about 44 total subjects ((44=665-225)*.1) who switched to low fat milk and avoided having a heart attack DURING THE STUDY PERIOD. But what was the cardiovascular health of these survivors at the END of the study period? Why, I don't think anyone had anything to say about that. No triglycerides, cholesterol, homocystine, CRP, oxygen, nothing. It doesn't seem like anyone was too curious to find out, does it? We aren't even told whether the survivors were in the bottom quartile of the age group, so how do we know the survivors were not 5-10 years *behind* their less fortunate croaking buddies on the developmental curve of heart disease? Care to take a guess? The sole basis for this "milk may cut heart disease risk" garbage is simply the fact that some skim milk drinkers didn't die as early of heart disease as other milk drinkers. The headline is not only irresponsible journalism, it's an example of junk science. PeterB >George, I'm suprised you would post a crap study like this. It has >"Dairy Job" written all over it. How so? > First, a correlation of food intake >to disease risk must be MUCH larger than 665 subjects to be meaningful. But this is just one of many recent studies showing the health benefits of dairy and in many ways, the smaller, more controlled studies like these are more 'telling' than the large, epidemiologocial ones. > Second, the article writer says "a random sample of the surviving men >in 2000" shows the majority of THOSE (NOT the majority of survivors, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >1-in-5 or 1-in-10? If it's 1-in-10, we're talking about 44 total >subjects ((44=665-225)*.1) who switched to low fat milk and avoided That's obviously not the type of thing that gets published as 'general interest' on Reuters, etc. More details can be found here: http://press.psprings.co.uk/jech/june/502_ch27904.pdf >having a heart attack DURING THE STUDY PERIOD. But what was the >cardiovascular health of these survivors at the END of the study [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >headline is not only irresponsible journalism, it's an example of junk >science. So read the full report... George, I'm suprised you would post a crap study like this. It has "Dairy Job" written all over it. First, a correlation of food intake to disease risk must be MUCH larger than 665 subjects to be meaningful. Second, the article writer says "a random sample of the surviving men in 2000" shows the majority of THOSE (NOT the majority of survivors, just the majority of those randomly SELECTED *from* that group) had switched to low-fat milk. It's very bad science to take a subset of your original population and suggest a health benefit based on a feature of that group but avoid measuring a similar trait in the rest of your subjects. In this case, we don't know what percentage of the total group was ALSO drinking skim milk already. It gets worse. We also don't know what random factor was used in this "analysis." Was it 1-in-5 or 1-in-10? If it's 1-in-10, we're talking about 44 total subjects ((44=665-225)*.1) who switched to low fat milk and avoided having a heart attack DURING THE STUDY PERIOD. But what was the cardiovascular health of these survivors at the END of the study period? Why, I don't think anyone had anything to say about that. No triglycerides, cholesterol, homocystine, CRP, oxygen, nothing. It doesn't seem like anyone was too curious to find out, does it? We aren't even told whether the survivors were in the bottom quartile of the age group, so how do we know the survivors were not 5-10 years *behind* their less fortunate croaking buddies on the developmental curve of heart disease? Care to take a guess? The sole basis for this "milk may cut heart disease risk" garbage is simply the fact that some skim milk drinkers didn't die as early of heart disease as other milk drinkers. The headline is not only irresponsible journalism, it's an example of junk science. PeterB George, I'm suprised you would post a crap study like this. It has "Dairy Job" written all over it. First, a correlation of food intake to disease risk must be MUCH larger than 665 subjects to be meaningful. Second, the article writer says "a random sample of the surviving men in 2000" shows the majority of THOSE (NOT the majority of survivors, just the majority of those randomly SELECTED *from* that group) had switched to low-fat milk. It's very bad science to take a subset of your original population and suggest a health benefit based on a feature of that group but avoid measuring a similar trait in the rest of your subjects. In this case, we don't know what percentage of the total group was ALSO drinking skim milk already. It gets worse. We also don't know what random factor was used in this "analysis." Was it 1-in-5 or 1-in-10? If it's 1-in-10, we're talking about 44 total subjects ((44=665-225)*.1) who switched to low fat milk and avoided having a heart attack DURING THE STUDY PERIOD. But what was the cardiovascular health of these survivors at the END of the study period? Why, I don't think anyone had anything to say about that. No triglycerides, cholesterol, homocystine, CRP, oxygen, nothing. It doesn't seem like anyone was too curious to find out, does it? We aren't even told whether the survivors were in the bottom quartile of the age group, so how do we know the survivors were not 5-10 years *behind* their less fortunate croaking buddies on the developmental curve of heart disease? Care to take a guess? The sole basis for this "milk may cut heart disease risk" garbage is simply the fact that some skim milk drinkers didn't die as early of heart disease as other milk drinkers. The headline is not only irresponsible journalism, it's an example of junk science. PeterB George, I'm suprised you would post a crap study like this. It has "Dairy Job" written all over it. First, a correlation of food intake to disease risk must be MUCH larger than 665 subjects to be meaningful. Second, the article writer says "a random sample of the surviving men in 2000" shows the majority of THOSE (NOT the majority of survivors, just the majority of those randomly SELECTED *from* that group) had switched to low-fat milk. It's very bad science to take a subset of your original population and suggest a health benefit based on a feature of that group but avoid measuring a similar trait in the rest of your subjects. In this case, we don't know what percentage of the total group was ALSO drinking skim milk already. It gets worse. We also don't know what random factor was used in this "analysis." Was it 1-in-5 or 1-in-10? If it's 1-in-10, we're talking about 44 total subjects ((44=665-225)*.1) who switched to low fat milk and avoided having a heart attack DURING THE STUDY PERIOD. But what was the cardiovascular health of these survivors at the END of the study period? Why, I don't think anyone had anything to say about that. No triglycerides, cholesterol, homocystine, CRP, oxygen, nothing. It doesn't seem like anyone was too curious to find out, does it? We aren't even told whether the survivors were in the bottom quartile of the age group, so how do we know the survivors were not 5-10 years *behind* their less fortunate croaking buddies on the developmental curve of heart disease? Care to take a guess? The sole basis for this "milk may cut heart disease risk" garbage is simply the fact that some skim milk drinkers didn't die as early of heart disease as other milk drinkers. The headline is not only irresponsible journalism, it's an example of junk science. PeterB Regarding intake of cows milk and risk of diabetes, the following abstracts published this month say no in either type 1 or 2 diabetes. The first shows that those using milk have a lower risk of getting type 2 and the second that the theory being explored 10 years ago, a lifetime in diabetes research, that a milk protein causes type 1 can no longer be supported: "Dairy consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus in men" Arch Intern Med. 2005 May 9;165(9):997-1003. "Follow-up Study. RESULTS: During 12 years of follow-up, we documented 1243 incident cases of type 2 diabetes. Dairy intake was associated with a modestly lower risk of type 2 diabetes. After adjusting for potential confounders, including body mass index, physical activity, and dietary factors, the relative risk for type 2 diabetes in men in the top quintile of dairy intake was 0.77 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62-0.95; P for trend, .003) compared with those in the lowest quintile. Each serving-per-day increase in total dairy intake was associated with a 9% lower risk for type 2 diabetes (multivariate relative risk, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.85-0.97). The corresponding relative risk was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.81-0.94) for low-fat dairy intake and 0.99 (95% CI, 0.91-1.07) for high-fat dairy intake. The association did not vary significantly according to body mass index (< 25 vs or = 25 kg/m(2); P for interaction, .57). CONCLUSION: Dietary patterns characterized by higher dairy intake, especially low-fat dairy intake, may lower the risk of type 2 diabetes in men." "The A2 milk case: a critical review." Eur J Clin Nutr. 2005 May;59(5):623-31. "there is no convincing or even probable evidence that the A1 beta-casein of cow milk has any adverse effect in humans." > Regarding intake of cows milk and risk of diabetes, the following > abstracts published this month say no in either type 1 or 2 diabetes. > The first shows that those using milk have a lower risk of getting type 2 > and the second that the theory being explored 10 years ago, a lifetime in > diabetes research, that a milk protein causes type 1 can no longer be > supported: That sientific study could mean well - but there must be a reason why a chiro doc friend (& nutritionist) has his young daughter drinking rice milk rather than cow's milk to reduce her chance of getting type 1 diabetes. I, myself, would trust the nutritional insight of a chiro doc over a "scientific" study any day. I am an avid believer in chiropractic doctors but what the geeeez would a chiro know about nutrition or health other than joint and muscle problems and health? > > Regarding intake of cows milk and risk of diabetes, the following > > abstracts published this month say no in either type 1 or 2 diabetes. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I, myself, would trust the nutritional insight of a chiro doc over > a "scientific" study any day. > I am an avid believer in chiropractic doctors but what the geeeez would a > chiro know about nutrition or health other than joint and muscle problems > and health? Many chiro docs desire to specialize in nutrition along with their regular chiro knowledge. Many chiro docs also sell nutritional supplements in their offices. Thus, my chiro doc friend (& nutritionist) has the necessary diet / nutritional knowledge to understand why his young daughter should NOT be drinking cow's milk. She drinks rice milk. This doesn't happen in Canada much 'round here. I think they would compromise their licence doing that. > > I am an avid believer in chiropractic doctors but what the geeeez would a > > chiro know about nutrition or health other than joint and muscle problems [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > milk. She drinks rice > milk. >> I am an avid believer in chiropractic doctors but what the geeeez would a >> chiro know about nutrition or health other than joint and muscle problems [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Many chiro docs also sell nutritional supplements in their >offices. Since they can't prescribe drugs, it makes them feel better to be able to prescribe *something*. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "I don't need someone to tell me that George W. Bush is a deceitful, corrupt, clever and destructive man--that's pretty clear on the face of it." -- Garrison Keillor > >> I am an avid believer in chiropractic doctors but what the geeeez would a > >> chiro know about nutrition or health other than joint and muscle problems [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Since they can't prescribe drugs, it makes them feel better to be able > to prescribe *something*. Does that mean Dr. Feel Good comes in all shapes and sizes? >> >> I am an avid believer in chiropractic doctors but what the geeeez would a >> >> chiro know about nutrition or health other than joint and muscle problems [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Does that mean Dr. Feel Good comes in all shapes and sizes? And colors. Don't forget colors! -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "I don't need someone to tell me that George W. Bush is a deceitful, corrupt, clever and destructive man--that's pretty clear on the face of it." -- Garrison Keillor >> I am an avid believer in chiropractic doctors but what the geeeez would a >> chiro know about nutrition or health other than joint and muscle problems [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > milk. She drinks rice > milk. Fascinating. Since rice milk is almost totally devoid of nutritional value (some carbohydrate and little else), this chiro must be conferring some kind of mystical significance to the word "milk", as do those who market this product with quite false claims.. No surprises there considering the level of medical understanding of many chiropractors. Recently in Australia we had a chiropractor's baby die because such the parents tried to raise it on rice milk. Peter Moran > No surprises there considering the level of medical understanding of many > chiropractors. Recently in Australia we had a chiropractor's baby die > because such the parents tried to raise it on rice milk. Peter, is this a case where a newly born infant is fed rice milk instead of her human mother's milk? >> No surprises there considering the level of medical understanding of many >> chiropractors. Recently in Australia we had a chiropractor's baby die >> because such the parents tried to raise it on rice milk. > > Peter, is this a case where a newly born infant is fed rice milk > instead of her human mother's milk? The infant was six months old. Caleb Moorhead was the name. My memory is faulty - it was a NZ case. Peter > "Peter Moran" <moringa@gil.com.au> wrote: > No surprises there considering the level of medical understanding of many > chiropractors. Recently in Australia we had a chiropractor's baby die > because such the parents tried to raise it on rice milk. > "George Lagergren" <gel44@earthlink.net> wrote in message > Peter, is this a case where a newly born infant is fed rice milk > instead of her human mother's milk? > The infant was six months old. Caleb Moorhead was the name. My memory is > faulty - it was a NZ case. Peter, I heard of a case where a six-month child had an ear infection. The kid's doctor said that the ear infection was the result of the kid being intolerant to cow's milk. So the doctor sent the parents to the drug store to pick up a [pharm drug?] cow's milk substitute with the necessary nutrient contained within it. The only big problem was the super expensive cost of this cow's milk substitute. Cow's milk costs about $4 USD per carton while this cow's milk substitute may cost $10 to $12 per carton?????? Perhaps Jeff the kid's doc would have more information about he prescribes for infants who are intolerant to cow's milk. >> "Peter Moran" <moringa@gil.com.au> wrote: > Peter, I heard of a case where a six-month child had an ear > infection. The kid's doctor said that the ear infection was the result of > the kid being intolerant to cow's milk. So the doctor sent the parents > to > the drug store to pick up a [pharm drug?] cow's milk substitute with the > necessary nutrient contained within it. Bullshit. What doctor would say that an ear infection is the result of cows' milk intolerance? It's not so, and you made it up yourself.  Signature--Rich Recommended websites: http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles http://www.acahf.org.au http://www.quackwatch.org/ http://www.skeptic.com/ http://www.csicop.org/ Doctors in the know. > >> "Peter Moran" <moringa@gil.com.au> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Bullshit. What doctor would say that an ear infection is the result of cows' > milk intolerance? It's not so, and you made it up yourself. "Fascinating. Since rice milk is almost totally devoid of nutritional value (some carbohydrate and little else), this chiro must be conferring some kind of mystical significance to the word "milk", as do those who market this product with quite false claims.. No surprises there considering the level of medical understanding of many chiropractors. Recently in Australia we had a chiropractor's baby die because such the parents tried to raise it on rice milk." But the child's spine was in perfect alignment and thus not being so can be ruled out as the cause of death. >No surprises there considering the level of medical understanding of >many chiropractors. Recently in Australia we had a chiropractor's >baby die because such the parents tried to raise it on rice milk." > >But the child's spine was in perfect alignment and thus not being so can >be ruled out as the cause of death. I'm sure his 'chakras' were in good order too... >Fascinating. Since rice milk is almost totally devoid of nutritional value >(some carbohydrate and little else), this chiro must be conferring some [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Peter Moran It's one thing to try subject your own body to crazy nutritional theories... but a young child? I hope the parents got jail time. What was the outcome? And what, they couldn't recognize the signs of malnutrition until the child was too far gone? >>Fascinating. Since rice milk is almost totally devoid of nutritional value >>(some carbohydrate and little else), this chiro must be conferring some [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >theories... but a young child? I hope the parents got jail time. >What was the outcome? The parents got five years imprisonment. A quick google search will turn up more than you want to know about this case. >And what, they couldn't recognize the signs of malnutrition until the >child was too far gone? The initial diagnosis, when they took the kid to a doctor, was "possible meningitis." The parents didn't want a lumbar puncture done, so they took the kid and scrammed. The doctor later reconsidered and suggested that a simple B12 injection would probably be sufficient, and it might well have, if the parents hadn't chosen to disappear and treat the infant by wrapping him in herbs and other such idiocy. Those reading over the last couple of days will recall our little discussion of the (lack of) nutritive value in rice milk. The parents were obviously not thinking too well -- I mean, not *nursing* an infant? -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "I don't need someone to tell me that George W. Bush is a deceitful, corrupt, clever and destructive man--that's pretty clear on the face of it." -- Garrison Keillor >> I am an avid believer in chiropractic doctors but what the geeeez would a >> chiro know about nutrition or health other than joint and muscle problems [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Many chiro docs also sell nutritional supplements in their >offices. Interesting. I wonder how many years of training they require to specialize in nutrition, and what type of certification they have? > Thus, my chiro doc friend (& nutritionist) has the necessary diet >/ nutritional knowledge to > understand why his young daughter should NOT be drinking cow's >milk. She drinks rice > milk. 'nuf said :-) >I am an avid believer in chiropractic doctors but what the geeeez would a >chiro know about nutrition or health other than joint and muscle problems >and health? Only what they read in 'High Times' and 'New Age Living' magazines :-) >> Regarding intake of cows milk and risk of diabetes, the following >> abstracts published this month say no in either type 1 or 2 diabetes. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >why a chiro doc friend (& nutritionist) has his young daughter drinking rice >milk rather than cow's milk to reduce her chance of getting type 1 diabetes. Well, it could be because he's nuts, or poorly-informed, too. I'm not saying that he is, but he could be. > I, myself, would trust the nutritional insight of a chiro doc over >a "scientific" study any day. I wouldn't. The fact that you would speaks volumes about you, none of it good. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "I don't need someone to tell me that George W. Bush is a deceitful, corrupt, clever and destructive man--that's pretty clear on the face of it." -- Garrison Keillor >>> Regarding intake of cows milk and risk of diabetes, the following >>> abstracts published this month say no in either type 1 or 2 diabetes. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Well, it could be because he's nuts, or poorly-informed, too. I'm not >saying that he is, but he could be. Most of them are (either nuts, or poorly-informed) IMHO. Most Chiro's I know of are borderline naturalpaths, and tend to discount the science of nutrition either because they don't understand it, or simply becuase it's not their 'niche' (ie. if you want science, see a doctor, if you want 'mysticism', see a chiro). Personally, I think a blending of science and 'wisdom' is the ideal - all information should be considered from scientific research and clinical trials, to ancient methods and traditions. >> I, myself, would trust the nutritional insight of a chiro doc over >>a "scientific" study any day. > >I wouldn't. The fact that you would speaks volumes about you, none of >it good. Me neither. Look at all the herbal products that many of them used to flog until science has proven that some are quite dangerous. >> Regarding intake of cows milk and risk of diabetes, the following >> abstracts published this month say no in either type 1 or 2 diabetes. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I, myself, would trust the nutritional insight of a chiro doc over >a "scientific" study any day. Bwaaahahaha! Seriously? rr >> "A diet rich in milk does not increase the risk of heart disease and >> stroke, and may even be protective, concludes research in the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >the risk of getting ear infections; strep throats; diabetes; and asthma / >lung congestion when drinking cow's milk. Sounds like a good trade to me. What's your problem with it? Are you arguing that a strep throat is worse than heart disease and stroke? -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "I don't need someone to tell me that George W. Bush is a deceitful, corrupt, clever and destructive man--that's pretty clear on the face of it." -- Garrison Keillor >> "A diet rich in milk does not increase the risk of heart disease and >> stroke, and may even be protective, concludes research in the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >the risk of getting ear infections; strep throats; diabetes; and asthma / >lung congestion when drinking cow's milk. There's no good evidence linking milk to increased bacterial or viral infections. There is evidence to show that milk probably helps prevent diabetes. calyps...@voyager.net wrote: > "A diet rich in milk does not increase the risk of heart disease and > stroke, and may even be protective, concludes research in the > Journal > of Epidemiology and Community Health." > > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050524001009.htm Cholesterol and animal fats are protective!?........In what way? By coating the arteries? What a crock! |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.