VitalChild - Why You Should Never Give Your Child Milk 4

WIN or Get Huge Savings!

Why You Should Never Give Your Child Animal Milk Part 4
THE MILK LETTER : Notmilk.com by Robert M. Kradjian, MD Date: 03/13/08

OTHER CANCERS--DOES IT GET WORSE?

Unfortunately it does. Ovarian cancer--a particularly nasty tumour--was

associated with milk consumption by workers at Roswell Park Memorial Institute in Buffalo, New York. Drinking more than one glass of whole milk or equivalent daily gave a woman a 3.1 times risk over non-milk users. They felt that the reduced fat milk products helped reduce the risk. This association has been made repeatedly by numerous investigators.

Another important study, this from the Harvard Medical School, analyzed data from 27 countries mainly from the 1970s. Again a significant positive correlation is revealed
between ovarian cancer and per capita milk consumption. These investigators feel that the lactose component of milk is the responsible fraction, and the digestion of this is
facilitated by the persistence of the ability to digest the lactose (lactose persistence) - a little different emphasis, but the same conclusion. This study was reported in the
American Journal of Epidemiology 130 (5): 904-10 Nov. 1989. These articles come from two of the country's leading institutions, not the Rodale Press or Prevention Magazine.

Even lung cancer has been associated with milk ingestion?
The beverage habits of 569 lung cancer patients and 569
    controls again at Roswell Park were studied in the
    International Journal of Cancer, April 15, 1989. Persons
    drinking whole milk 3 or more times daily had a 2-fold
    increase in lung cancer risk when compared to those never
    drinking whole milk.

    For many years we have been watching the lung cancer rates
    for Japanese men who smoke far more than American or
    European men but who develop fewer lung cancers. Workers in
    this research area feel that the total fat intake is the
    difference.

    There are not many reports studying an association between
    milk ingestion and prostate cancer. One such report though
    was of great interest. This is from the Roswell Park
    Memorial Institute and is found in Cancer 64 (3): 605-12,
    1989. They analyzed the diets of 371 prostate cancer
    patients and comparable control subjects:

    Men who reported drinking three or more glasses of whole
    milk daily had a relative risk of 2.49 compared with men who
    reported never drinking whole milk the weight of the
    evidence appears to favour the hypothesis that animal fat is
    related to increased risk of prostate cancer. Prostate
    cancer is now the most common cancer diagnosed in US men and
    is the second leading cause of cancer mortality.

    WELL, WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS?

    Is there any health reason at all for an adult human to
    drink cows' milk?

    It's hard for me to come up with even one good reason other
    than simple preference. But if you try hard, in my opinion,
    these would be the best two: milk is a source of calcium and
    it's a source of amino acids (proteins).

    Let's look at the calcium first. Why are we concerned at all
    about calcium? Obviously, we intend it to build strong bones
    and protect us against osteoporosis. And no doubt about it,
    milk is loaded with calcium. But is it a good calcium source
    for humans? I think not. These are the reasons. Excessive
    amounts of dairy products actually interfere with calcium
    absorption. Secondly, the excess of protein that the milk
    provides is a major cause of the osteoporosis problem. Dr. H
    egsted in England has been writing for years about the
    geographical distribution of osteoporosis. It seems that the
    countries with the highest intake of dairy products are
    invariably the countries with the most osteoporosis. He
    feels that milk is a cause of osteoporosis. Reasons to be
    given below.

    Numerous studies have shown that the level of calcium
    ingestion and especially calcium supplementation has no
    effect whatever on the development of osteoporosis. The most
    important such article appeared recently in the British
    Journal of Medicine where the long arm of our dairy industry
    can't reach. Another study in the United States actually
    showed a worsening in calcium balance in post-menopausal
    women given three 8-ounce glasses of cows' milk per day.
    (Am. Journal of Clin. Nutrition, 1985). The effects of
    hormone, gender, weight bearing on the axial bones, and in
    particular protein intake, are critically important. Another
    observation that may be helpful to our analysis is to note
    the absence of any recorded dietary deficiencies of calcium
    among people living on a natural diet without milk.

    For the key to the osteoporosis riddle, dont look at
    calcium, look at protein. Consider these two contrasting
    groups. Eskimos have an exceptionally high protein intake
    estimated at 25 percent of total calories. They also have a
    high calcium intake at 2,500 mg/day. Their osteoporosis is
    among the worst in the world. The other instructive group
    are the Bantus of South Africa. They have a 12 percent
    protein diet, mostly p lant protein, and only 200 to 350
    mg/day of calcium, about half our women's intake. The women
    have virtually no osteoporosis despite bearing six or more
    children and nursing them for prolonged periods! When
    African women immigrate to the United States, do they
    develop osteoporosis? The answer is yes, but not quite are
    much as Caucasian or Asian women. Thus, there is a genetic
    difference that is modified by diet.

    To answer the obvious question, "Well, where do you get your
    calcium?" The answer is: "From exactly the same place the
    cow gets the calcium, from green things that grow in the
    ground," mainly from leafy vegetables. After all, elephants
    and rhinos develop their huge bones (after being weaned) by
    eating green leafy plants, so do horses. Carnivorous animals
    also do quite nicely without leafy plants. It seems that all
    of earth's mammals do well if they live in harmony with
    their genetic programming and natural food. Only humans
    living an affluent life style have rampant osteoporosis.

    If animal references do not convince you, think of the
    several billion humans on this earth who have never seen
    cows' milk. Wouldn't you think osteoporosis would be
    prevalent in this huge group? The dairy people would suggest
    this but the truth is exactly the opposite. They have far
    less than that seen in the countries where dairy products
    are commonly consumed. It is the subject of another paper,
    but the truly significant determinants of osteoporosis are
    grossly excessive protein intakes and lack of weight bearing
    on long bones, both taking place over decades. Hormones play
    a secondary, but not trivial role in women. Milk is a
    deterrent to good bone health.

    THE PROTEIN MYTH

    Remember when you were a kid and the adults all told you to
    "make sure you get plenty of good protein". Protein was the
    nutritional "good guy" when I was young. And of course
    milk is fitted right in.

    As regards protein, milk is indeed a rich source of protein-
    -"liquid meat," remember? However that isn't necessarily
    what we need. In actual fact it is a source of difficulty.
    Nearly all Americans eat too much protein.

    For this information we rely on the most authoritative
    source that I am aware of. This is the latest edition (1oth,
    1989: 4th printing, Jan. 1992) of the Recommended Dietary
    Allowances produced by the National Research Council. Of
    interest, the current editor of this important work is Dr.
    Richard Havel of the University of California in San
    Francisco.

    First to be noted is that the recommended protein has been
    steadily revised downward in successive editions. The
    current recommendation is 0.75 g/kilo/day for adults 19
    through 51 years. This, of course, is only 45 grams per day
    for the mythical 60 kilogram adult. You should also know
    that the WHO estimated the need for protein in adults to by
    .6g/kilo per day. (All RDA's are calculated with large
    safety allowances in case you're the type that wants to add
    some more to "be sure.") You can "get by" on 28 to 30 grams
    a day if necessary!

    Now 45 grams a day is a tiny amount of protein. That's an
    ounce and a half! Consider too, that the protein does not
    have to be animal protein. Vegetable protein is identical
    for all practical purposes and has no cholesterol and vastly
    less saturated fat. (Do not be misled by the antiquated
    belief that plant proteins must be carefully balanced to
    avoid deficiencies. This is not a realistic concern.)
    Therefore virtually all Americans, Canadians, British and
    European people are in a protein overloaded state. This has
    serious consequences when maintained over decades. The
    problems are the already mentioned osteoporosis,
    atherosclerosis and kidney damage. There is good evidence
    that certain malignancies, chiefly colon and rectal, are
    related to excessive meat intake. Barry Brenner, an eminent
    renal physiologist was the first to fully point out the
    dangers of excess protein for the kidney tubule. The dangers
    of the fat and cholesterol are known to all. Finally, you
    should know that the protein content of human milk is amount
the lowest (0.9%) in mammals.

Read More, Part 5: "IS THAT ALL OF THE TROUBLE?"

THE MILK LETTER : A MESSAGE TO MY PATIENTS
Robert M. Kradjian, MD
Breast Surgery Chief Division of General Surgery,
Seton Medical Centre #302 - 1800 Sullivan Ave.
Daly City, CA 94015 USA
http://www.notmilk.com/kradjian.html

Comments (0) Add Comment