3 ms·

Cancer as well. See The China Study (https://nutritionstudies.org/the-china-study/ https://nutritionstudies.org/the-china-study/). See also this summary of othe

by jdnier 3y ago

Cancer as well. See The China Study (https://nutritionstudies.org/the-china-study/ https://nutritionstudies.org/the-china-study/). See also this summary of other research studies here: https://nutritionstudies.org/12-frightening-facts-milk/ https://nutritionstudies.org/12-frightening-facts-milk/

haldujai 3y ago
I didn't read the first link but looking at the second one this is typical nutritional pseudoscience misrepresentation of evidence, the nutritionstudies.org author states: "A large observational cohort study[1] in Sweden found that women consuming more than 3 glasses of milk a day had almost twice the mortality over 20 years compared to those women consuming less than one glass a day. In addition, the high milk-drinkers did not have improved bone health. In fact, they had more fractures, particularly hip fractures." Which is a misleadingly confident interpretation of the cited paper which concludes with: "High milk intake was associated with higher mortality in one cohort of women and in another cohort of men, and with higher fracture incidence in women. Given the observational study designs with the inherent possibility of residual confounding and reverse causation phenomena, a cautious interpretation of the results is recommended." Beyond correlation =/= causation, note the trepidation in the referenced authors conclusion. Furthermore some of this has been subsequently contradicted by other studies[0] (probably why the Swedish authors had hesitation). [1] provides a more detailed explanation of why the originally referenced study has limited interpretability. Avoid milk all you want but suggesting "milk is bad for you" is supported by evidence is very misleading, there is conflicting poorly controlled observational evidence on both sides of the discussion. If you like milk, drink it within reason and don't feel bad (for your health). [0] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-nutrition/article/milk-drinking-and-risk-of-hip-fracture-the-norwegian-epidemiologic-osteoporosis-studies-norepos/C606985C2EF4EF50F1AA0CCDACF8A13A https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-n... [1] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00198-017-4088-y https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00198-017-4088-y
- jdnier 3y ago
  The first link is about The China Study. Here's the Wikipedia description, if you're not familiar with it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Cornell%E2%80%93Oxford_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Cornell%E2%80%93... > The China–Cornell–Oxford Project, short for the "China-Oxford-Cornell Study on Dietary, Lifestyle and Disease Mortality Characteristics in 65 Rural Chinese Counties," was a large observational study conducted throughout the 1980s in rural China, a partnership between Cornell University, the University of Oxford, and the government of China.[1] The study compared the health consequences of diets rich in animal-based foods to diets rich in plant-based foods among people who were genetically similar. In May 1990, The New York Times termed the study "the Grand Prix of epidemiology".

by jdnier 3y ago

haldujai 3y ago

I didn't read the first link but looking at the second one this is typical nutritional pseudoscience misrepresentation of evidence, the nutritionstudies.org author states: "A large observational cohort study[1] in Sweden found that women consuming more than 3 glasses of milk a day had almost twice the mortality over 20 years compared to those women consuming less than one glass a day. In addition, the high milk-drinkers did not have improved bone health. In fact, they had more fractures, particularly hip fractures." Which is a misleadingly confident interpretation of the cited paper which concludes with: "High milk intake was associated with higher mortality in one cohort of women and in another cohort of men, and with higher fracture incidence in women. Given the observational study designs with the inherent possibility of residual confounding and reverse causation phenomena, a cautious interpretation of the results is recommended." Beyond correlation =/= causation, note the trepidation in the referenced authors conclusion. Furthermore some of this has been subsequently contradicted by other studies[0] (probably why the Swedish authors had hesitation). [1] provides a more detailed explanation of why the originally referenced study has limited interpretability. Avoid milk all you want but suggesting "milk is bad for you" is supported by evidence is very misleading, there is conflicting poorly controlled observational evidence on both sides of the discussion. If you like milk, drink it within reason and don't feel bad (for your health). [0] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-nutrition/article/milk-drinking-and-risk-of-hip-fracture-the-norwegian-epidemiologic-osteoporosis-studies-norepos/C606985C2EF4EF50F1AA0CCDACF8A13A https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-n... [1] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00198-017-4088-y https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00198-017-4088-y

jdnier 3y ago
The first link is about The China Study. Here's the Wikipedia description, if you're not familiar with it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Cornell%E2%80%93Oxford_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Cornell%E2%80%93... > The China–Cornell–Oxford Project, short for the "China-Oxford-Cornell Study on Dietary, Lifestyle and Disease Mortality Characteristics in 65 Rural Chinese Counties," was a large observational study conducted throughout the 1980s in rural China, a partnership between Cornell University, the University of Oxford, and the government of China.[1] The study compared the health consequences of diets rich in animal-based foods to diets rich in plant-based foods among people who were genetically similar. In May 1990, The New York Times termed the study "the Grand Prix of epidemiology".