3 ms·

I'm not sure how you can make statements like that without any evidence. It may be related to IGF-1 or some other nutrients instead. https://www.nature.com/ar

I'm not sure how you can make statements like that without any evidence. It may be related to IGF-1 or some other nutrients instead. https://www.nature.com/articles/1601948 https://www.nature.com/articles/1601948 https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/106/2/597/4557638 https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/106/2/597/4557638

micromacrofoot 4y ago
I was responding to a post that also did not show evidence. > The height difference for a child aged 3 y consuming 3 cups noncow milk/d relative to 3 cups cow milk/d was 1.5 cm (95% CI: 0.8, 2.0 cm). We're talking about 1.5cm here. I guess if you're training your kid to be an olympic athlete then stick to cow's milk, but they'll be fine in the general sense with an similarly nutritious alternative. Lactose-intolerant kids aren't horrifically short or malnourished. There's a general fear that cow's milk is some sort of necessity (as instilled by the dairy lobby), but it's not. The outcomes are negligible given an otherwise normal diet.
- denimnerd42 4y ago
  I'm not gonna purposely stunt my child's growth over the selection of drink product at the grocery store. 1.5cm at 3yo is 3-5% of the kids total growth since born and probably more significant if you subtract 1 year of breastfeeding. That would be 1.5cm within 2 years of growth.
  - micromacrofoot 4y ago
    Your grandkids may very well experience climate-related famine, but hopefully they'll find solace in their parents being a few cm taller than the lactose intolerant. This is a little bit of a ridiculous way to approach nutrition. My point is that very few people actually need cow's milk to the extent that the dairy industry would lead you to believe. A few cm does not negate that. Compared to most of human history we live in a time of nutritional abundance.

3 ms·

I'm not sure how you can make statements like that without any evidence. It may be related to IGF-1 or some other nutrients instead. https://www.nature.com/ar

by denimnerd42 4y ago

micromacrofoot 4y ago
I was responding to a post that also did not show evidence. > The height difference for a child aged 3 y consuming 3 cups noncow milk/d relative to 3 cups cow milk/d was 1.5 cm (95% CI: 0.8, 2.0 cm). We're talking about 1.5cm here. I guess if you're training your kid to be an olympic athlete then stick to cow's milk, but they'll be fine in the general sense with an similarly nutritious alternative. Lactose-intolerant kids aren't horrifically short or malnourished. There's a general fear that cow's milk is some sort of necessity (as instilled by the dairy lobby), but it's not. The outcomes are negligible given an otherwise normal diet.
- denimnerd42 4y ago
  I'm not gonna purposely stunt my child's growth over the selection of drink product at the grocery store. 1.5cm at 3yo is 3-5% of the kids total growth since born and probably more significant if you subtract 1 year of breastfeeding. That would be 1.5cm within 2 years of growth.
  - micromacrofoot 4y ago
    Your grandkids may very well experience climate-related famine, but hopefully they'll find solace in their parents being a few cm taller than the lactose intolerant. This is a little bit of a ridiculous way to approach nutrition. My point is that very few people actually need cow's milk to the extent that the dairy industry would lead you to believe. A few cm does not negate that. Compared to most of human history we live in a time of nutritional abundance.