> "If someone asked me to put together a presentation on the value of drinking milk, I could put together a 1-hour presentation that would knock your socks off. You'd think, 'Whoa, everybody should be drinking more milk.' If someone said do the opposite, I could also do that.
Pretty much sums up the state of nutrition science.
I wonder if the scientist in question doesn't know of the possibility of confounders, didn't mention them to the reporter, or the reporter just didn't think that was exciting enough to include in the article. It seems just possible that there is something about 1% fat milk drinkers that is different from 2% fat milk drinkers, which causes them to drink 1% fat milk and which also causes them to have longer telomeres. Unfortunately, there is no link to the study, so we can't see what was controlled for. But if I were a betting man I'd bet that most of the difference is caused by other causes than the difference in milk drinking.
Alternative hypothesis: People who choose to trade flavour for lower milk fat tend to also be more risk-aware, prefer a healthier lifestyle (don't smoke, work out) which contribute to slower telomere shortening.
People who chose flavour over lower milk fat would probably self-describe as "living the moment", likely tend to favour short-time gratification more, and do more activities that lead to faster telomere shortening.
Obviously this is an anecdote, but what's ironic is that in my life, the "generally healthier" people all opt for either whole-milk or alternative kinds of milk (almond, oat, etc.), whereas the overweight people I know almost always opt for skim milk.
I am a pretty active person and health-conscious, and in my group, we all typically agree that we aren't fond of the substitutes made in skim milk.
That's why it's so hard to figure out the long term effects of a lot of foods. People who do/don't eat X, tend to make other choices as well, which can easily have a bigger impact than X itself. Plus people are notoriously unreliable in accurately reporting what they eat and do.
We'd need to have long term randomized controlled trials where the only difference between groups is the one variable. Which there's no ethical way to accomplish.
So unless we figure out some other method, I suspect we'll never really know about many things in nutrition until we have fully accurate human simulations...
Serious question - would it make these studies more accurate if in addition, the scientists were also able to control for differences in dna? ie, maybe protein absorption is not as good in a significant amount of the tested population for this study.
Much of food science and the media reporting about it is thoroughly co-opted by the foods industry. See also the stories about pushing fat rather than sugar as the cause of obesity in the US.
I have a friend with a Phd in food science who went to work for General Mills. He quit 6 months later because all the projects he was given were essentially "Figure out how to make product X with cheaper materials J,K, and L and have it taste the same."
The 6 or so existing conglomerates/holding companies that own the food products industry are all about their own profits, not about health or telling the truth, and they'll do whatever is necessary to keep those profits intact.
True, and my frustration probably shows. I shouldn't rant.
Maybe the finding is drink whole milk until 18 to lower risk of obesity then switch to 1% to slow effects of aging.
What I'd like to see is a reliable source that synthesizes recent, reproducible research into cogent diet recommendations. Anyone aware of such a source?
In the meantime, I'd prefer not to be pestered by narrow tree-instead-of-the-forest articles that seem to be published every week with hyperspecific diet research. Up to me to ignore them I guess instead of ranting.
Still I thought this was an especially poignant example of research popularized just a few weeks apart that could understandably leave many people wondering what action to take or reducing confidence in diet research in general.
There's a study I want to see. Mortality rate broken down by cause compared to health enthusiasm rated by sect.
Or even simpler, compared to book ownership. Pick a few hundred of the most popular health books and track a population of owners and their cause of death or significant health events.
Just opened the study and read a bit about the methods and I wonder why they didn't include people that do not drink milk so the telomere lengths could be compared.
We cannot know if milk (in general or 1%) is causing aging or protecting against it, cases which point for very different conclusions.
This table also has something interesting that corroborates with this idea:
Note how the ones that rarely drink any milk have the same telomere lengths, same as the ones that drink full fat or 2% milk. SE is also so big for 1% and non-fat on the "rarely" row that telomere lengths can be considered to be the same for all the columns (on this row).
It makes me wonder if it's the milk or if there is any other covariable that is playing a role here. In fact, they themselves cite this in the study ("Discussion" section):
"However, it is possible that other dietary differences account for some of the biological aging differences among the milk fat categories."
Therefore, I'd take this study with a grain of salt. If anything can be concluded by these numbers is that 1% milk may be protective, not that full-fat milk promotes aging.
I hate food science, Just few weeks back had switched from 1% milk to full fat milk by reading one another article which states opposite. That sugar lobby has demonised fat and actually consuming non skimmed milk reduces craving. So you do less beinge eating. Now this is opposite!!
I know everyone's reaction (mine included) was: "No shit, people who drink low-fat milk probably live healthier lives in general"... But it looks like they really did account for other variables and found that milk-fat percentage was the only strong factor in play:
> "High-fat milk consumers may have lifestyles that are less healthy than low-fat milk drinkers. Since this possibility was recognized before the onset of the investigation, statistical adjustments were made for a dozen potential confounders. Statistical analyses determined that these variables had little influence on the milk fat and telomere relationship. Nevertheless, other variables could explain some of the relationship between milk fat intake and telomere length identified in the present investigation."
Okay, but let's stop and think about it for ten seconds: Of course drinking a slightly different brand of milk doesn't make you live 4.5 years longer; the headline claim is obvious nonsense. (And as I understand it, it's now thought that to the extent there is any difference, it's in favor of the high-fat milk.)
So then the conclusion seems to be that confounding factors have an extremely strong effect on the conclusion, even when the investigators have tried hard to screen them out.
Why? What went wrong with the attempts to screen out the confounding factors?
To be fair, it's a pretty large claim to just assume that something "went wrong with the attempts to screen out the confounding factors" and that the conclusion must be false.
It's a shocking conclusion, I'll give you that. And to be honest, I'm not convinced either. You might very well be right. But it's a strong claim to make agains a peer-reviewed journal publication.
I am inclined to think genetic signature matters. Is the lengthening of telemores a genetic thing? I am not sure if that’s even a right question to ask.
Isn't milk such a small part of most people's diets that it couldn't possibly have much of an effect? Especially for adults. Most people I know just put a bit in coffee and that's about it. I can't remember the last time I drank a glass of milk.
(Note I mean milk the drink, dairy is probably a big part of diets but that's not being studied here)
That was also one of my initial thoughts. But who knows. I'm sure milk consumption varies a lot in different geographies, cultural backgrounds, upbringings, etc...
I personally never drink milk. The only dairy product I regularly consume is butter. But I had a roommate who drank a glass of milk with dinner every day and occasionally had a bowl of cereal in the mornings. So It's at least a spectrum.
Serious question: is 1% milkfat known to be "more healthy" than 2%? The body needs fats, and the USA (most of all) is still recovering from an unhealthy fear of fats instilled by the megacorps the past ~30 years.
[me: grew up drinking 2% until I was fully grown / 18yrs]
Readit News
Pretty much sums up the state of nutrition science.
People who chose flavour over lower milk fat would probably self-describe as "living the moment", likely tend to favour short-time gratification more, and do more activities that lead to faster telomere shortening.
I am a pretty active person and health-conscious, and in my group, we all typically agree that we aren't fond of the substitutes made in skim milk.
We'd need to have long term randomized controlled trials where the only difference between groups is the one variable. Which there's no ethical way to accomplish.
So unless we figure out some other method, I suspect we'll never really know about many things in nutrition until we have fully accurate human simulations...
Whole milk is where it is at! Full flavor while leaving you feeling satisfied.
https://new.hindawi.com/journals/omcl/2019/1574021/
I also think it should say “correlates with” rather than account for.
From just 8 days ago.
Really getting tired of these conflicting narrow food/health studies.
NYT: Whole Milk May Be Better When It Comes to Children’s Weight
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/07/well/whole-milk-may-be-be...
I have a friend with a Phd in food science who went to work for General Mills. He quit 6 months later because all the projects he was given were essentially "Figure out how to make product X with cheaper materials J,K, and L and have it taste the same."
The 6 or so existing conglomerates/holding companies that own the food products industry are all about their own profits, not about health or telling the truth, and they'll do whatever is necessary to keep those profits intact.
Maybe the finding is drink whole milk until 18 to lower risk of obesity then switch to 1% to slow effects of aging.
What I'd like to see is a reliable source that synthesizes recent, reproducible research into cogent diet recommendations. Anyone aware of such a source?
In the meantime, I'd prefer not to be pestered by narrow tree-instead-of-the-forest articles that seem to be published every week with hyperspecific diet research. Up to me to ignore them I guess instead of ranting.
Still I thought this was an especially poignant example of research popularized just a few weeks apart that could understandably leave many people wondering what action to take or reducing confidence in diet research in general.
Or even simpler, compared to book ownership. Pick a few hundred of the most popular health books and track a population of owners and their cause of death or significant health events.
We cannot know if milk (in general or 1%) is causing aging or protecting against it, cases which point for very different conclusions.
This table also has something interesting that corroborates with this idea:
https://new.hindawi.com/journals/omcl/2019/1574021/tab4/
Note how the ones that rarely drink any milk have the same telomere lengths, same as the ones that drink full fat or 2% milk. SE is also so big for 1% and non-fat on the "rarely" row that telomere lengths can be considered to be the same for all the columns (on this row).
It makes me wonder if it's the milk or if there is any other covariable that is playing a role here. In fact, they themselves cite this in the study ("Discussion" section):
"However, it is possible that other dietary differences account for some of the biological aging differences among the milk fat categories."
Therefore, I'd take this study with a grain of salt. If anything can be concluded by these numbers is that 1% milk may be protective, not that full-fat milk promotes aging.
"The moment you're born, you start dying."
Everything is killing me. Some things a bit faster than others.
> "High-fat milk consumers may have lifestyles that are less healthy than low-fat milk drinkers. Since this possibility was recognized before the onset of the investigation, statistical adjustments were made for a dozen potential confounders. Statistical analyses determined that these variables had little influence on the milk fat and telomere relationship. Nevertheless, other variables could explain some of the relationship between milk fat intake and telomere length identified in the present investigation."
Source: https://new.hindawi.com/journals/omcl/2019/1574021/
So then the conclusion seems to be that confounding factors have an extremely strong effect on the conclusion, even when the investigators have tried hard to screen them out.
Why? What went wrong with the attempts to screen out the confounding factors?
It's a shocking conclusion, I'll give you that. And to be honest, I'm not convinced either. You might very well be right. But it's a strong claim to make agains a peer-reviewed journal publication.
(Note I mean milk the drink, dairy is probably a big part of diets but that's not being studied here)
I personally never drink milk. The only dairy product I regularly consume is butter. But I had a roommate who drank a glass of milk with dinner every day and occasionally had a bowl of cereal in the mornings. So It's at least a spectrum.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/are-fats-so-b...