1. General Facts and Pathway
2. Correlations with other conditions
3. Scientific Solutions to Hypolactasia
4. General Health Risks Associated with Human consumption of Dairy: The Seemingly Unusual

* Click here to get back to the top.

1. * General Facts and Pathway *

Hypolactasia is the scientific name given for the metabolic pathway disease in which the individual is unable to digest the "milk" sugar disaccharide, lactose, "Galactose-Beta-1,4-glucose" - whose formal scientific name is "O-Beta-D-galactopyranosyl(1-->4)Beta-D-glucopyranose." Lactose is the main carbohydrate in both cows' milk and that of humans, and the breakdown has the pathway as follows:

           Lactose       ----------->> Galactose + Glucose<

Not to be confused galactosemia, the metabolic pathway disorder for galactose catabolism, both disorders result in the individual being unable to consume large quantities of milk or dairy products. The hypolactasiac can not break down lactose into galactose and glucose; the galactosemic individual can not metabolize galactose, a product of the lactase. In galactosanemia, the affected individual is prevented from galactose from metabolizm due to the lack of the enzyme, galactose-1-phosphate uridyl transferase, thus John Doe is unable to convert galactose back to usable glucose!

In E. coli, lactose stimulates the production of a lactase enzyme (as a positive homotropic/substrate stimulator). HOWEVER, when glucose is around, lactase enzyme activity is more-or-less shut down. Here is a little table to help you understand why E. coli are smarter than humans in one area:

---

NO LACTOSE/NO GLUCOSE=Result: No enzyme activity of lactase - and hungry bacteria

High LACTOSE/NO GLUCOSE=Result: Lactase enzyme activity likes to cleave lactose milk sugar into galactose and glucose - E. coli get a meal.

NO LACTOSE/High GLUCOSE=Result: Happy E. coli eat glucose.

High LACTOSE/Any amount of GLUCOSE=Result: E. coli DO NOT produce significant amounts of lactase enzyme to feed on lactose milk sugar. Instead, they eat the "preferred substrate," Glucose sugar! Why is it preferred? Probably becasue it can be metabolized with one LESS step, the cleavage of that 1-->4 Beta bond. Perhaps, stearic hindrance of the two 5'-alcohol moeties make it hard for an enzyme to approach that bond in the true 3-Dimensional molecular configuration - if, that is, the alcohol groups are forced to face each other.

Take Home Message: We are going to learn why it might be a good idea for us to take the E. coli's example and NOT consume bovine (cow) milk later in our discussion.

---

It seems that both disorders are recessive (see below) and not sex-linked but, instead, on autosomes. A slightly better picture of the pathway is here, along with the mechanism, the "pacman crunch"... uh, just kidding, but here is a pic from our familiar class text, Chapter 31, page 1030. Remember? We just went over this in class!

Also called "lactose intolorance" or "lactase nonpersistance," this disease's physiological basis is the lack of production (to levels below 10%) of the enzyme "lactase" on the brush border of the small intestine. Lactose not split into galactose and glucose by lactase is, instead, metabolized by colon bacteria, with the hydrogen gas being one product. In fact, a breath test for hydrogen gas is a reliable test for hypolactasia. The bacteria ferment the lactose to chort-chain fatty acids, more easily absorbed by the colon, but if they are not absorbed fast enough, osmotic activity ensues, causing diarrhea is severe cases.

The inability to metaboloze lactose commences shortly after childhood, actually right after weaning. It is common in most people on non-Euorpean origin, especially those of African and Asian decent, with approximately 75% of African-Americans unable to digest lactose. In fact, most of the world population is homozygous recessive, and thus unable to metabolize lactose after weaning. (The Lancet; April 15 2000, v.355, 9212, 1330 When sugar is not so sweet. Matthews, S B; Campbell, A K) (Expert advice on Health and Fitness.(Brief Article) - Ebony; Nov 1999, v.55, 1, 26)

Here is an interesting article title, which implies the positive: Tufts University Health & Nutrition Letter; Oct 1999, v.17, 8, 6, Can you become lactose intolerant as an adult?(Brief Article)

There are actually three forms of hypolactasia:

1) The congenital form is a result of low enzymes activity at birth and is very rare, affecting about a dozen people worldwide.

2) Secondary lactase deficiency is the result of a temporary condition such as illness, medication, or, conceivably, even old age, and that affects the gastrointestional tract, inhibiting lactase activity for whatever reason.

3) Primary lactase deficiency is the genetic metabolic pathway condition, affecting primarily those from 2 to 20 years old and as described above. The inability to digest lactose is a hereditary condition being inherited as an autosomal recessive trait. Jarvela, et al. seems to have localized this gene to 2q arm of chromosome 21, near but distinct from the lactase-phlorizin hydrolase gene. Put another way, the ability to metabolize lactose is dominant trait.

Without going into the exact breakdown worldwide of the distribution, it appears that this trait was under selective pressure due to the differential dairy farming of different populations: The populations utilizing lactose-based diets selected for the ability to digest it, and those poplulations not consuming appreciable amounts selected against the trait. There are hypothoses which propose that vitamin-D, available in milk, was a factor in fitness of populations. Also, it is believed by researchers that hot, arid climates selected against those who were lactose-intolorant due the diarrhea (thus, water loss) that often surfaced as side-effects resulting from the end-products of alternate methods of digesting lactose in those unable to utilize lactase activity, i.e., it may support growth of unhealthy intestinal flora.

Click here to get back to the top.

2. * Correlations with other conditions *

There are other problems associated with hypolactasia but probably not directly casued by it.

As mentioned earlier, diarreah is indirectly casued bas a result of the chemical products resulting from improper metabolism, whichm in turn, draw water osmotically into the intestines and thus casue fluid loss. Lesions and other conditions (such as irritable bowel syndrome ) not to be repeated in polite company are discussed in more detail in the 560 kilobyte Word document included as part of the Bibiliography. (Constipation sometimes results after sufficient waser loss has occurred.) Some of the connections remain unclear points on this topic. However, some of the side-effects could be attributed to the body's attempt to digest it via colonic bacteria, whose products include systemic toxins such as acetaldehyde, formate, diacetyl, acetoin, butan-2,3-diol, propan-1,3-diol, and even hydrogen gas! (Can you say "He's got gas?") Bloating has also been noted in association with hypolactasia.

Click here to get back to the top.

3. * Scientific Solutions to Hypolactasia *

The most obvious way to avoid these problems would be for one to eliminate lactose-containing products from the diet, but some people are resistant to attitude changes in the belief that dairy products are necessary and healthy additions to the diet. (A similar phsycological condition/mindset explains why some people don't take the obvious action of not speeding but instead get radar detectors in hopes of avoiding a ticket!)

Nonetheless, popular ways to address this include chemically fermenting (via 'friendly' or , probiotic bacteria') or enzymatically digesting the lactose (via lactase in tablet form).

Other methods include substituting cheese, ice cream, or yogurt with their lower lactose contents.

Yet other methods involve building up a tolorance to lactose, perhaps in the hopes that it will stimulate lactase production or production of other enzymes or chemicals produced by intestional bacteria. The latter, however, probably involves fermenting, a rather nasty prospect.

Although attempts to adjust fat content in milk have been tried, this has met with little success. In fact, lactose-free milk evokes responses sometimes because lactose-intolerant individuals are sometimes also sensitive to other allergens. Some studies, however, have suggested that increased fat content may help with digestion a little bit.

While one study found no significant difference in blood chemistry or growth (and probably not for gastrointestinal irritation), it may have been due to other allergens in the lactose-free milk whey used as the experimental comparison to lactose-containing milk-based formula. Other studies have found soy-based formulas to be superior to milk-based ones in such areas as gastrointestinal symptoms. CHRONIC CONSTIPATION IN CHILDREN TRACED TO INTOLERANCE OF COW'S MILK. (Lactose intolerance) HealthInform: Essential Information on Alternative Health Care; Sept 1999, 5, 5, 4.

I quote a short section: "A team of medical scientists in Palermo, Italy, had observed through its previous research that constipation in young children could be caused by cow's milk intolerance… In the double-blind, cross-over study, 65 children from 11 to 72 months received either cow's milk or soy milk for two weeks, and then after one wash-out week, switched to the other type of milk… Results: Of the subjects, 68% (44 of 65), benefited from the soy milk treatment. These 44 youngsters underwent a double-blind challenge with cow's milk that confirmed that their constipation was due to cow's milk intolerance. With soy milk, anal fissures healed and bowel movement pain subsided."

One study even found that consumption of lactose with a meal ameliorated symptoms normally associated with lactose intolerance. Although it doesn't specify the mechanisms, I hypothesize either an increase in Hydrochloric Acid production or a "dilution" effect may be involved in helping reduce side effects.

It is noteworthy to point out that some people incorrectly think they are lactose intolerant and vica versa, but the latter is, for obvious reasons, less likely. (I.e., the person would find out real quick if they were a "maldigester.")

Gene therapy has apparently been done in rats, in which genes were inserted into a pill to permanently cure lactose intolorance. Now, how was that done? Source: "Raise a glass of milk." (research on pill to cure lactose intolerance) (Brief Article) Maclean's; Oct 19 1998, v111, n42, p80(1) The lactase must, however, resist acid denaturation from stomach HCl acid, to be effective. Although not mentioned ("A commonsense approach to lactose intolerance" in Patient Care; April 15 1997, v31, n7, p185 (7) Levitt, et al.), I suppose that there were mixing agents that caused the tablet to dissolve slowly. Perhaps an alkali agent would be helpful in counteracting the acidic stomach pH.

Vesa, et al. (The Journal of Nutrition; Dec 1997, v127, n12, p2316 (5)) found that increased caloric intake in a particular meal assisted in lactose digestion, probably as a result of the slowing down of the digestion process. It is instructive to compare this hypothesis with the similar "dilution" explanation I supposed earlier.

One more solution that has been tried is listed but at the bottom, as I suspect more marketing and less science is involved, but, nonetheless, here it is:

A brief quote: Copy explains that milk-based supplements, which comprise most of the market, can cause cramps, nausea, flatulence, bloating and diarrhea--but not Isopure, which is made from "100% pure whey protein isolate." Source: Reyes, Sonia Got Milk, Got Problems Says Nature's Best. (Brief Article) Brandweek; Feb 19 2001, v.42, 8, 12 COPYRIGHT 2001 BPI Communications, Inc.

"We want to heighten awareness to ... lactose-intolerant athletes that with our light and easy digestible product, they don't have to suffer gastric disturbances and discomfort," said Hal Katz, pres/CEO of Nature's Best, a Hauppauge, N.Y-based maker of nutritional products.

Uh,... right, Hal. I believe this is nothing more than flatulance: It is pretty obvious that whey contains lactose and other iritants, but this is a minor point in the face of the evidence. The graphs in the last section below ought to provoke a response:

Click here to get back to the top.

4. * General Health Risks Associated with Human consumptionof Dairy: The Seemingly Unusual *

If you don't drink dogs' or pigs' milk, then you shouldn't drink drink cows' milk, but just in case it didn't sink in, here's a little help:

The health risks studied have been found primarily in connection with human consumption of bovine milk, that is the milk of cows:

Feeding milk to infants unable to tolorate lactose results in increased size of the liver and spleen, increased incidence of cataracts, and feeble-mindedness. Removal of galactose from the diet results in rapid regression of the symptoms. The idea here is that, even though infants have more lactase than adults (apparently babies are *more* able to digest milk), the fact is that the infant immune system - as well as general bodily functions - are less able to defend against attack, be it viral, bacterial, or simply malicious and/or undigestible chemicals! Remember: babies are weak, probably a main reason respected U.S. phycisian Dr. Benjamin Spock warned against giving cow milk to infants under the age of one year!

OK, here are these graphs, but first an explanation: Three graphs relate a milk lactose intake POSITIVELY correlated with health problems, one shows a NEGATIVE correlation between allergy (intolorance) to the milk-sugar and a studies disease; in other words, those countries with the largest fractions of lactose intolorant people (who presumably drank LESS milk), had LESS of the disease studied. Here you go, with an explanation below - and citations from the scientific literature:

Sometimes a graph ... or a picture ... is worth a Thousand words!
Note: This second graph is different than the first! Do you see the plot axes (pl: axis)?

Digest this: explanations below:

Now, that explanation: Does correlation mean causation? Not necessarily, but with p-values and R-squared values, some sense can be made of these data. Four and ONLY four (no more!) different possibilities exist:

1. Milk consumption casues diseases (my proposition)
2. Diseases (somehow!?) promote milk consumption
3. There is a common cause to both
4. The correlation is due to chance alone

Let's eliminate number 4: the p-value uses statistics to ask this question - and answer it. The chances that each corrrelation was due to chance alone is each case was less than or equal to "in one THOUSAND!" ... Using the multiplicitave rule of probability calculations, we ask "What are the chances that ALL the graphs are due to chance alone?" Multiplying out, we get: (0.0003)(0.0001)(0.0000001)(0.001) = (3 e-4)(1 e-4)(1 e-7)(1 e-3) = (3 e-18)! Now, did you notice one flaw in my assumptions? That's right, I included the "animal products" graph in the calculations even though other materials besides milk was consumed, but nonetheless, it is very revealing to look at that number: If you think that one can make statistics say what you want ...think again! You probably also think you can win the lottery ...after all, it's just *six* little numbers you got to pick, right? (heh heh heh...)

The chance that all four graphs are due to random error are less than three in a Million-Million-MILLION! Did you get that?

Now that we've established the meaning of the p-values (the probability of random chance), let's look at the R-values. The quantity "R-squared" has some significance, which, in plain English, means that the higher it is, the more the items are related. For example, ciggarette smoking may CERTAINLY casue cancer (p-value=0.000000001 or something), but *how bad* of a cancer? A high R-value means it affects health much (or *some* correlation exists.). However, with a real low p-value ~AND~ with a low R-value one could safely (statistically) conclude that cigarette smoking DEFINITELY casues a health problem but *only* of a small magnitude, i.e., not a real health risk.

Let's examine the other three possibilities:

Does coming down with a disease (there are several listed) have a cause-and-effect force to make a person drink milk or other dairy? Unlikely!

The third possibility is that there is a common cause, for example, in countries with higher milk consumption, you have higher chemical pollutants becasue both items are easily produced in a strong economy. Perhaps in a poor country, where chemicals, pesticides, and auto pollution etc. are less available, MILK is also less available due to cost and price conciderations.... uh, I don't think so: Milk and dairy items are relatively cheap and available the world wide! ~~~>Which brings us to our last step. Let's get help from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes:

The great detective is quoted as saying (paraphrase) the following: "When you eliminate ALL that is impossible, whatever remains, ever how IMPROBIBLE, is the TRUTH."

In plain English, that means that we have eliminated all the other "possibilities." The remaining "choice" is the only "possibility," thus we must logicly conclude that it is the truth.

Apparently, 1. Human consumption of animal dairy is injurous to the health; and, 2. Those allergic to dairy don't consume it and avoid certain health problems. Also, 3. The USA, supposedly a "great" country (MY country, go AMERICA!), has many health problems that other nations *do not* have. Why does such great a nation have such problems?

Nonetheless, there is ample material from the scientific literature, which should answer that and many other questions. To be unambiguous, let's just peek into the literature, remebering that:
1. Cow milk is deficient in Mg2+, a necessary cofactor in Ca2+ digestion;
2. Bovine Growth Hormones - analogous to human growth hormones - are given to animals to (slightly) increase milk, beef, and possibly egg production; SPECIAL NOTE: Athletic Doctors *frown* upon giving human growth hormones to athletes to boost their performance, yet, this is exactly what is done to animals in order to only slightly increase their production of milk and beef and egg yields. The fact that the enimals are getting overworked adds to the health problems of the animals.
3. Homoginization chops up lipids, allowing them to get into small areas of the body, doing damage; and,
4. We don't drink milk from many other animals (pigs, dogs, monkeys), even though these animals are closer to our kind. Without further ado, I introduce the actual scientific literature:

Time Magazine headlines of 30 October 2000: "EARLY PUBERTY Why Girls Are Growing Up Faster: "Is it hormones [in food or milk]...How parents and kids are coping" pp. 66-74.

"With breast cancer rates continuing to rise in the United States and Europe, researchers have begun to look toward Asia for insights as to why Asian women on the whole have much lower incidence of this devastating disease. Specifically, the age-adjusted death rates due to breast cancer from 1990-1993 were 3.3 times lower for Japanese women than American woman and 4.5 times lower for Chinese women compared to American women. (Parker SL, Tung T, Bolden S, Wingo P: Cancer statistics, 1996. Ca: a Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 1996;46(1):5-27.) according to: http://www.medsch.ucla.edu/som/ddo/biolchem/nut-1998/ByteV4N1/v4n1rood.html#1.

(Editorial note: I recall that *most* of the studies found health RISKS (not benefits) associated with consumption of animal products by humans - so, the few remaining citations are, in fact, representative of the literature.)

"Because there is clinical and experimental evidence that galactose may be toxic to ovarian germ cells, the authors sought to determine... The authors found significant correlations among these variables such that fertility at older ages is lower and the decline in fertility with aging is steeper in populations with high per capita consumption of milk and greater ability to digest its lactose component." (Cramer, D.W., H. Xu, and T. Sahi. Adult Hypolactasia, Milk Consumption, and Age-Specific Fertility. American Journal of Epidemiology 1994. Vol. 139. No. 3 p.282, Abstract near top of page.) Translation: They found that the more milk a country drunk, the more infertility problems its women had. I saw the two graphs.

"Mettlin and Piver (1) recently reported that increased risk for ovarian cancer associated with [happening together with] milk consumption was confined to consumers of whole milk, rather than skim milk... [However, we found that u]se of more than one serving per day of skim (or low fat) milk was associated with an increased risk for ovarian cancer." (Cramer, D. W. and B.L. Harlow. Commentary: Re: "A Case-Control Study of Milk Drinking and Ovarian Cancer Risk". American Journal of Epidemiology 1991. Vol. 134. No. 5 p. 454, quotes from first two paragraphs.) Translation: They both found links between milk use and ovarian cancer; they disagreed, however, as to which type of milk was the problem.

"This was a 12-year prospective study among 77 761 women... In our cohort [group], women consuming greater amounts of calcium from dairy foods had modest but significantly increased risks of hip fracture while no increase in fracture risk was observed for the same levels of calcium from nondairy sources. ... With a fourfold difference in calcium intake between the 10th and 90th population percentiles, it seems unlikely that the lack of association between dairy calcium and fracture risk in our cohort can be due to insufficient variation in diet. Misclassification of calcium intake could attenuate [weaken] association, but it would not explain the positive association observed between dietary calcium and hip fractures." (Feskanich, D., ScD; W.C. Willert, MD, DrPH; M.J. Stampfer, MD, DrPH; and, G.A. Colditz, MD, DrPH. Milk, Dietary Calcium, and Bone Fractures in Women: A 12-year Prospective Study. American Journal of Public Health June 1997. Vol. 87 No. 6 p. 992 Abstract Methods and p. 996: 6th and 7th paragraphs, respectively.) Translation: The problem was so obvious that even reporting errors by those who filled out questionnaires would not worry these scientists.

There are a number of other reasons to avoid use of animals products, such as the fact that we only get about TEN PERCENT of the calories back in the form of meat/milk/eggs from the input - the grain we feed the animals, but this is off topic; refer to my "Consumer Advisory" page for details.

Nonetheless, here is the source - with its quote:

[BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE 5TH EDITION by KEETON & GOULD: (ISBN: 0-393-96223-7) {William T. Keeton; James L. and Carol Gould} Publishers: W. W. Norton & Company, New York and London. Pp. 1156-7.]

"...[O]nly a fraction of the energy at one trophic level can be passed on to the next. This fraction varies from a high of about 35 percent for the most efficient ... to below 0.1 percent..." p.1156; and,

"Given the inefficiency of the energy transfer from one trophic level to the next, it might seem that the earth could support more humans if we all stopped being omnivorous, and lived on a wholly vegetable diet instead of the combined animal and vegetable diet..." p.1157

All the above studies were verified as really from the literature, but let me conclude with some citations found by my friend, Robert Cohen: http://www.notmilk.com. I have tested many of his claims and have found him to be accurate on many claims of studies that were findable, so we are going to trust him on the rest:

Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 19:05:38 +0500
Dear Friends,

The American Heart Association Statement has issued a statement on coronary heart disease.

http://www.usnewswire.com/topnews/Current_Releases/0215-149.html

According to the latest statistics cited in the February 16th, 2001 issue of Morbidity and Mortality, a Centers for Disease Control weekly publication, an estimated 60.8 million Americans suffer from one form or another of cardiovascular disease.

The president of the American Heart Association, Rose Marie Robertson, M.D., had these words of wisdom:

"It's imperative that we reduce death rates from coronary heart disease."

Gee willikers, if only I had that kind of insight.

What did the American Heart Association neglect to say?

They did not reveal that the dairy industry is a major donor to the American Heart Association.

They did not reveal that saturated animal fat and cholesterol have been identified as the major cause of coronary heart disease.

They did not reveal that each day from milk and dairy products, the average American consumes the same cholesterol contained in 53 slices of bacon. By age 52, the average American will have eaten from his or her cheese, butter, ice cream, and milk the same cholesterol contained in one million slices of bacon. Nearly 61 million Americans suffer from cardiovascular disease. Wow! I didn't know that the number was so high, but it really should not be such a surprise.

In 1979, The Lancet, a British medical journal, reported that Finland ranks highest of all nations in milk consumption and mortality from heart disease.

Two years later, a survey of 24 countries revealed that milk and dairy products gave the highest correlation coefficient to heart disease, while sugar, animal proteins and animal fats came in second, third, and fourth, respectively.

Why do Greenland Eskimos, who have a very low incidence of heart disease, eat a high-fat, high-protein diet, but a very low intake of milk? Could fat and cholesterol from meat have very little to do with heart disease? Is milk the missing link? One day perhaps the American Heart Association will take a closer look at the destructive milk enzyme, xanthene oxidase.

Two Connecticut researchers observed that xanthene oxidase survived digestion and destroyed the atrial material in the hearts of their patients. Oster and Ross wrote:

"Bovine milk xanthene oxidase (BMXO) may be absorbed and may enter the cardiovascular system. People with clinical signs of atherosclerosis have greater quantities of antibodies. BMXO antibodies are found in greater in those patients who consume the largest volumes of homogenized milk and milk products." ("The X-O Factor," by Kurt Oster, M.D., and Donald Ross, Ph.D.)

Robert Cohen
http://www.notmilk.com

Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 05:40:32 -0500
From: Robert Cohen [i4crob@earthlink.net]
Reply-To: notmilk-owner@yahoogroups.com
To: notmilk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: NOTMILK -ALL PROTEINS ARE NOT CREATED EQUAL

[ The following text is in the "ISO-8859-1" character set. ]
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]

*******************************************
I consider this to be the most important column I've ever written. Please read it carefully. Do me (& you) the favor of sharing it with your physician. Thanks, Robert Cohen
*******************************************
__________________________________________________
WHO GETS BONE DISEASE?

Why do nations with the highest rates of bone disease also have the highest milk consumption rates? The highest rates of osteoporosis are to be found in Denmark, Holland, Norway, and Sweden.

We are told to consume 1000 milligrams per day of calcium. Inuit Eskimos consume 3500 milligrams of calcium each day, and by age 40 are crippled.

THE KEY TO OSTEOPOROSIS

It's not how much calcium you eat. It's how much calcium you prevent from leaving your bones.

WHY DOES CALCIUM LEAVE BONES?

There are 28 amino acids in nature. The human body can manufacture 19 of them. The other nine are called "essential." We must get them from the foods we eat.

One of those "essential" aminos is methionine.

One needs methionine for many human metabolic functions including digestion, detoxification of heavy metals, and muscle metabolism. However, an excess of methionine can be toxic.

Methionine = C-5, H-11, NO, S

Methionine is a good source for sulfur. That's the problem. Eat foods containing too much methionine, and your blood will become acidic. The sulfur converts to sulfates and weak forms of sulfuric acid. In order to neutralize the acid, in its wisdom, the body leaches calcium from bones.

"Dietary protein increases production of acid in the blood which can be neutralized by calcium mobilized from the skeleton." {American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 1995; 61,4}

Animal proteins contain more methionine than plant proteins. Let's compare cow's milk to soymilk:

Methionine in 100 grams of soymilk: .040 grams
Methionine in 100 grams of whole milk: .083 grams
Methionine in 100 grams of skim milk: .099 grams

Now, let's compare 100 gram portions of tofu to meat:
(All of the meat products are lean and without skin)

Silken soft tofu: .074 grams
Hamburger: .282 grams
Hard boiled egg: .392 grams
Roast ham: .535 grams
Baked codfish: .679 grams
Swiss cheese .784 grams
Roast chicken: .801 grams

In 1988, N.A. Breslau and colleagues identified the relationship between protein-rich diets and calcium metabolism, noting that protein caused calcium loss. His work was published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology (1988;66:140-6)

A 1994 study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (Remer T, Am J Clin Nutr 1994;59:1356-61) found that animal proteins cause calcium to be leached from the bones and excreted in the urine.

MORE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE:

"Osteoporosis is caused by a number of things, one of the most important being too much dietary protein." {Science 1986;233, 4763}

"Even when eating 1,400 mg of calcium daily, one can lose up to 4% of his or her bone mass each year while consuming a high-protein diet." {American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 1979;32,4}

"Increasing one's protein intake by 100% may cause calcium loss to double." {Journal of Nutrition, 1981; 111, 3}

"The average man in the US eats 175% more protein than the recommended daily allowance and the average woman eats 144% more." {Surgeon General's Report on Nutrition and Health, 1988}

"Consumption of dairy products, particularly at age 20 years, were associated with an increased risk of hip fractures... metabolism of dietary protein causes increased urinary excretion of calcium." {American Journal of Epidemiology 1994;139}

Can it get worse? Absolutely.

The Framingham Heart Study is the largest and most exciting heart study in the history of mankind. Some of the highlights of this exhaustive 50 year study:

In 1960, Cigarette smoking was found to increase the risk of heart disease.

In 1970, high blood pressure was found to increase the risk of stroke.

During the 1980's, high levels of HDL cholesterol were found to reduce risk of death from heart disease.

In the 1990's, homocysteines were identified as key factors in heart attack deaths.

Homocysteines are normal breakdown products of METHIONINE and are believed to exert a number of toxic effects in the body. I recently spoke with the senior investigator of the Framingham heart study, William Castelli, M.D. (E-mail: william_castelli@mwmc.com) Dr. Castelli has suggested that an elevated homocysteine level is a risk factor for heart disease. The first evidence of this was published in the American Journal of Cardiology (Glueck, 1995;75:132^Ö6).

Two recent publications resulting from Framingham data indicate a positive correlation between cardiovascular disease mortality and blood serum levels of homocysteine.

Bostom AG, et. al, Nonfasting plasma total homocysteine levels and all-cause and cardiovascular disease mortality in elderly Framingham men and women. Arch Intern Med 1999; 159:1077-1080.

Bostom A.G., et. al, Nonfasting plasma total homocysteine levels and stroke incidence in elderly persons: the Framingham Study. Ann Intern Med 131[5], 352-355, 1999.

Robert Cohen
http://www.notmilk.com
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 04:36:36 -0500
From: Robert Cohen [i4crob@idt.net]
Reply-To: notmilk-owner@egroups.com
To: notmilk@egroups.com
Subject: NOTMILK H IS FOR HEART DISEASE

Dear Friends,

Heart disease is America's number one killer. Most American's and scientific agencies are in agreement: Saturated animal fat and cholesterol do not do the heart any good. According to USDA figures, each day, the average American eats just 5 ounces of meat and chicken containing saturated fat and cholesterol, and 29.2 ounces of milk and dairy products (666 pounds per American) containing the same dangerous factors. The following nine studies are a confirmation to milk's link to heart disease:
__________________________________

"Milk and milk products gave the highest correlation coefficient to heart disease, while sugar, animal proteins and animal fats came in second, third, and fourth, respectively."

A Survey of Mortality Rates and Food Consumption Statistics of 24 Countries, Medical Hypothesis 7:907-918, 1981
__________________________________

"More patients who had suffered a myocardial infarction had elevated levels of antibodies against milk proteins than was found in a comparable group of patients without coronary heart disease."

Davies, Antibodies and Myocardial Infarction, The Lancet, ii: 205-207, 1980
__________________________________

"Milk consumption correlates positively with cholesterol levels in blood as well as coronary mortality. In comparisons between 17 countries, there is a good correlation between national cholesterol levels and mortality from ischaemic heart disease."

European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 48:305-325, 1994
__________________________________

"Although studies point out strong negative correlations between wine consumption and heart disease... six countries with the highest mortality show no correlation at all. Finland ranks highest of all in milk consumption, wine consumption and mortality from heart disease."

The Lancet, I, 1017-1020, 1979
__________________________________

"Milk and many components of milk (butterfat, milk protein, calcium from milk, and riboflavin)^Ĺ were positively related to coronary heart disease mortality for all 40 countries studied."

Circulation 1993; 88(6):2771-2779
__________________________________

"Greenland Eskimos, who have a very low incidence of ischemic heart disease, have a high-fat, high-protein diet, but a very low intake of milk."

British J of Preventive & Social Medicine, 1977
__________________________________

"For ischemic heart disease milk carbohydrates were found to have the highest statistical association for males aged 35+ and females aged 65+. In the case coronary heart disease, non-fat milk was found to have the highest association for males aged 45+ and females aged 75+, while for females 65-74, milk carbohydrates and sugar had the highest associations...animal proteins contribute to homocysteine production; however, milk more than meat lacks adequate B vitamins to convert homocysteine to useful products. Lactose and calcium in conjunction with homocysteine from consumption of non-fat milk may also contribute to calcification of the arteries."

Altern Med Rev, 1998 Aug, 3:4
__________________________________

"Excessive milk consumption may adversely affect the circulation on account of the high calcium content of milk and because lactose promotes the intestinal absorption of calcium. Excessive calcium intake may cause calcification and rigidification of the large elastic arteries, which could be an important factor in causing myocardial ischaemia."

Med Hypotheses, 2000 May, 54:5
__________________________________

"Animal food-groups were directly correlated to mortality from coronary heart disease, defined as sudden coronary death or fatal myocardial infarction and vegetable food-groups (except potatoes) as well as fish and alcohol were inversely correlated with CHD mortality. Univariate analysis showed significant positive correlation coefficients for butter (R = 0.887), meat (R = 0.645), pastries (R = 0.752), and milk (R = 0.600) consumption, and significant negative correlation coefficients for legumes (R = -0.822), oils (R = -0.571), and alcohol (R = -0.609) consumption. Combined vegetable foods (excluding alcohol) were inversely correlated (R = -0.519), whereas combined animal foods (excluding fish) were directly correlated (R = 0.798) with coronary heart disease death rates."

Eur J Epidemiol, 1999 Jul, 15:6, 507-15
__________________________________
Robert Cohen
http://www.notmilk.com

***

Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 06:46:36 -0500
From: Robert Cohen [i4crob@earthlink.net]
Reply-To: notmilk-owner@yahoogroups.com
To: notmilk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: NOTMILK -HANDFUL OF REFERENCES

Dear Friends,

When friends or relatives extol the virtues of milk, kindly send them these five references:
____________________________________________________
"In reality, cow's milk, especially processed cow's milk, has been linked to a variety of health problems, including: mucous production, hemoglobin loss, childhood diabetes, heart disease, atherosclerosis, arthritis, kidney stones, mood swings, depression, irritability and allergies."

Townsend Medical Letter, May, 1995
____________________________________________________
"Cow's milk has become a point of controversy among doctors and nutritionists. There was a time when it was considered very desirable, but research has forced us to rethink this recommendation...dairy products contribute to a surprising number of health problems..."

Benjamin Spock, M.D., "Child Care," 7th Edition
____________________________________________________
"Osteoporosis is caused by a number of things, one of the most important being too much dietary protein."

SCIENCE 1986; 233
____________________________________________________
"The level of dioxin in a single serving of the Ben & Jerry's World's Best Vanilla Ice Cream tested was almost 200 times greater than the 'virtually safe [daily] dose' determined by the Environmental Protection Agency."

Steve Milloy, author of junkscience.com (Milloy tested samples of ice cream for dioxins. The only major newspaper to report the story was the Detroit Free Press). 11/8/99
____________________________________________________

"I have run into patients who undergo marked alterations in behavior patterns when ingesting dairy products, and whose behavior is totally changed by withholding them."

Letter, Pediatrics 1979;64(5) John J. Murray, M.D.
____________________________________________________

Robert Cohen
http://www.notmilk.com

This appears to be the end of the sources to quote, but I burnt out trying to get the right combination and order or references -- there are just too many!! --GW

Click here to get back to the top.

Single Check: \*

This page on my website is tentatively finished but NOT double-checked. -GW

Below are links to word documents I am using for sources. CAREFUL: One is BIG, at about 560 kilobytes in size!
| hypolactasia.doc |
| XABSTRACT.doc |