I'm not for debating much to be honest these days, but for the sake of argument I opened all the links you and the other fellow posted, and read the research.
---
Milk & Asthma - https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC3279269/
If you open the link and read it, the conclusion at the bottom says:
"Current evidence does not directly link milk consumption and asthma. Hence, physicians should continue to encourage parents to follow Health Canada’s recommendation for regular consumption of milk for all children."
So basically this wasn't showing milk caused asthma at all, but rather there was currently no evidence for the link.
----
"Abstract
The reported milk consumption habits of 3,334 cancer patients and 1,300 comparable control subjects seen at Roswell Park Memorial Institute were studied. The cancer patient group included persons diagnosed with cancers of the oral cavity, stomach, colon, rectum, lung, breast, uterus, cervix, prostate, or bladder. Data were obtained by means of a standardized admissions questionnaire. As a group, control patients were more likely to report never drinking whole milk; cancer patients more often reported frequent consumption of whole milk. Relative risks of different patterns of milk consumption for specific cancer diagnoses, adjusted for sex, age, smoking history, education, and county of residence, were calculated with multiple logistic regression analysis. Elevated risks for frequent consumption of whole milk relative to not drinking milk were observed for cancers of the oral cavity, stomach, colon, rectum, lung, bladder, breast, and cervix. Reduced risks for frequent consumption of 2% milk relative to not drinking milk were observed for cancers of the oral cavity, stomach, rectum, lung, and cervix. Preference for exclusive consumption of reduced-fat milk was linked to significant risk reduction for oral and cervical cancers, and drinking only whole milk was linked to significant risk increases for cancers of the oral cavity, stomach, rectum, lung, and breast. Some associations were observed for a computed index of milk fat intake, but the overall pattern of effects was not fully explained by variations in fat content. The effects observed for some sites may be confounded by other dietary or nondietary correlates of risk."
So basically the questionnaire showed people with higher milk consumption had a higher risk of all sorts of cancers, as long as it is whole milk (full fat 2%). Reduced fat milk had a significant risk reduction of all those cancers.
So first of all, this is really saying only full fat milk increases risk of cancer, not reduced fat milk. So you can't bundle all milks in one boat and say they're bad for you can cause cancer. Secondly this isn't a controlled study, it's a questionnaire and data analysis of risks. Which brings me to my third point. Since it's not a controlled study, we have no idea how the milk was produced or sourced.
In my opinion, this relates to what I said earlier: "But overall I think pasteurized milk (without the antibiotics or growth hormones) is beneficial to the normal lactose tolerant person, rather than detrimental. It's not a poison, it's a food." We know there is a link between cancer growth and excessive growth hormones. We also know in modern dairy practices, cows are given antibiotics and growth hormones (especially in the USA). And we also know fat is the most likely thing to store high levels of hormones in.
So this could explain the correlation of high fat milk consumption and cancer risks. But it doesn't prove it's down to the milk causing this. It could be the farming practices. The EU have banned many hormones given to cattle for the last 20 years, which are still legal in the US today and some manufacturers have only slowly phased out. Since we lack the data of how the milk was produced, we can't conclude just because of the correlation, that non treated, organically produced full fat milk would have caused this at all. For all we know, the generation of milk drinkers they got their data from, could be a product of the hormonal treatments the dairy industry used on their cattle over the years.
---
Milk and Eczema - https://www.ncbi.nlm...pubmed/12487205
"Food allergy has a role in at least 20% of the cases of AEDS in children younger than 4 years. Cow's milk is usually the first food given to an infant, and cow's milk hypersensitivity is often the first symptom of an atopic condition...
After consumption of large amounts of cow's milk, 45% of 10-year-old children who had become tolerant of cow's milk, but also 15% of control subjects, still had gastrointestinal complaints. The presence of cow's milk allergy during infancy increases the risks for development of other food allergies, respiratory atopy, and persistence of AEDS.
CONCLUSION:
Adverse reactions to bovine proteins have an important role in AEDS."
So basically if your child has a cows milk allergy, and are fed cows milk when they're younger, they are more likely develop other allergies including eczema. Well that doesn't seem to hard to believe. But this isn't saying milk is bad. This is saying milk is bad for children who are allergic to it. There's nothing in this research to say that children without these milk allergies will suffer from these problems.
---
Milk and Teenagers with and without Acne - http://www.jaad.org/...0131-1/abstract
"Limitations
Limitations include self-report of diet and portion size, and association does not determine causation.
Conclusions
Consumption of low-fat/skim milk, but not full-fat milk, was positively associated with acne."
First look at the limitations of this study I've underlined and bolded it.
Ignoring the limitations and going on the conclusion, if teenagers suffer from acne, then they may need to reduce or stop milk consumption. Doesn't mean milk is a junk food as you put it. Just mean's teenagers with acne should probably avoid it.
It's like me. I actively avoid dairy because I'm lactose intolerant. Doesn't mean yogurt is a junk food. Just means my body can't handle it.
Also like me, I never suffered from acne when I was younger or going through puberty. And I use to drink milk back then, I only became lactose intolerant when I reached my 20's.
---
The Huffington Post Article Ark linked to (Harvard Milk Study: It Doesn't Do A Body Good) - http://www.huffingto..._n_3550063.html
Is title is pure hyperbole and clickbait. The study in discussion is this one: http://jamanetwork.c...bstract/1704826
Which says:
"In light of research linking sugar-sweetened beverage consumption to obesity, the US Department of Agriculture, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and other organizations have formulated recommendations on healthy beverages. These guidelines consistently recommend limiting consumption of all calorie-containing liquids, except reduced-fat milk, of which people in most age groups are encouraged to consume 3 cups daily. This article questions the scientific rationale for promoting reduced-fat milk consumption at these levels in children and adults and reconsiders the role of cow’s milk in human nutrition."
If you read the article, it mostly talks about how it's bad to give sweetened reduced fat milk to children. While whole fat unsweetened milk would benefit them more as it would fill them up. Then he talks about how humans have no nutritional requirement for milk and calcium can be gotten from better food sources. I could day the same with oranges. Humans have no nutritional requirement for oranges, because they can get those nutritional requirements from 100's of other foods.
As we can see this piece was against US Department of Agricultures recommendation, because of sweetened milk. And nothing against regular milk being bad for you. In fact as I said previously, he mentions how unsweetened regular whole fat milk would be beneficial to prevent weight gain, vs sweetened low fat milk.
---
How Bacteria In Cows' Milk May Cause Crohn's Disease - https://www.scienced...71210104002.htm
"The team found that a bacterium called Mycobacterium paratuberculosis releases a molecule that prevents a type of white blood cell from killing E.coli bacteria found in the body. E.coli is known to be present within Crohn’s disease tissue in increased numbers.
It is thought that the Mycobacteria make their way into the body’s system via cows’ milk and other dairy products. In cattle it can cause an illness called Johne's disease - a wasting, diarrhoeal condition. Until now, however, it has been unclear how this bacterium could trigger intestinal inflammation in humans."
First look at the title and the words "May Cause". Secondly if we look at the research, the bacteria "is thought" to make it's way to humans via cows milk and other dairy products. Thirdly, we are talking about infected cows here. I'm sure consuming any animal (or it's byproducts), which is infected or disease ridden, is going to cause problems in human. How many people cook and eat gone off chicken where bacteria has multiplied? They are risking health problems. The same as if you get milk from a cow which is infected by mycobacteria and is possibly suffering from Johne's disease. I'm sure if anyone says this milk came from a cow who has Johne's disease or is infected by mycobacteria, people would pass. This research doesn't prove milk is bad, just infected milk might be bad. It's the same situation with eggs and salmonella.
---
I've kind of run out of steam at this point. But as for the last article on milk/yogurt reducing anti-oxidants in food by binding to them. If you look at food and beverages in general, there are so many interactions and bindings happening all the time and all over the place. I wouldn't call it huge cause for concern. This food reduces absorption of this, that beverage reduces absorption of that, doesn't mean they're junk food or poison. It just means you either have to be careful when combining certain foods, or don't worry about the reduction so much unless you think you're developing a big nutritional deficiency.
Edited by manny, 25 February 2017 - 02:26 PM.
