« I scooped the New York Times on aspartame study | Main | ASBP weighs in »
February 13, 2006
Who would have thought it?
The New York Times strikes again.
In an editorial in yesterday's paper entitled "The Great White Way" Nina Planck decries the fact that markets even in the poorest districts are promoting 1 percent milk. And that schools are doing the same thing with their school lunches.
Ms. Planck makes the point that whole milk is a whole food containing, among a host of good nutrients, vitamins A and D, both of which require fat for their absorption. If you drink 1 percent milk, whatever vitamins A and D you do get, won't be absorbed.
But what about that awful saturated fat that is in whole milk? Says Ms. Planck:
Scientists are increasingly finding that whole milk and saturated fats have been given an undeserved bad rap. Many experts say the evidence blaming saturated fats for heart disease is surprisingly weak. Indeed, the main effect of eating saturated fats is to raise high-density lipoproteins, or H.D.L., the so-called good cholesterol. And with H.D.L., the higher, the better.
Then she writes the words I've been waiting to read:
What about recommendations that we should drink low-fat milk to prevent heart disease? A federal study released last week, the largest study of its kind, found that low-fat diets do not prevent heart disease.[my italics]
Sweetness!
I'm eating this with a spoon. The ink is barely dry on these studies, and they're already being quoted as gospel.
No more can the low-fatters lord it over us with their condescending sneers of, 'Well, sure low-carb diets make you lose weight better, but at the expense of clogging your arteries.' Now all we have to do is invoke THE STUDY. It will be like shoving a cross in a vampire's face. If they can't figure out on their own that these are fairly crappy studies, I'm not going to tell them.
Posted by mreades at February 13, 2006 03:28 PM
Comments
"If they can't figure out on their own that these are fairly crappy studies, I'm not going to tell them."
LOL you are too funny!
Posted by: Alcinda Moore at February 14, 2006 02:24 PM
Low fat milk is for the rest, Whole is what I like the best.
I've endured the admonitions of the Pediatrician for years, for feeding my kids that awful whole milk! I suspect they've thought about reporting my abusive behavior. ;-) My kids are healthy, happy, active, and slim.
Posted by: Karen Jenn at February 14, 2006 08:15 PM
Still there are plenty of sites that, for some obscure reason, some people also take as "the authorities in milk". Check these out for example:
http://www.duffyslaw.com/current9.htm
(This one is in pdf format)
http://www.fnp.uconn.edu/beverages/Quick%20Facts%20on%20Milk.pdf
And, of course, this:
http://www.rense.com/general26/milk.htm
In which one of my favorite quotes is this:
"*ALL* cow's milk (regular and 'organic') has 59 active hormones, scores of allergens, fat and cholesterol."
A good amount of those hormones are peptide hormones which are not likely to 'survive' their passage through the acidic environment of the stomach. As for the "scores of allergenes, fat and cholesterol", well, we all know about how 'true' that is regarding their detrimental effects.
I wonder how sick the Massai get after drinking the amoutns of milk they normally consume... Funny that some countries have more dangerous cows than others!
Posted by: Gabriel E. Guzman, Ph.D. at February 15, 2006 11:03 AM