romans@midas.UUCP (Roman Slizynski) (12/19/86)
I would like to know the truth about milk as a nutrition. I have recently met several people how were strongly against milk consumption saying that milk contents were hard to digest and had no nutrition value. In childhood I was told that milk is essential to people of all ages and was really important as a contrapoison (antidote) in some cases. Milk contains fat, cholesterol which is not really good for any one, but also it has calcium and others minerals which are necessary for in humans. This is all what I know about it. Is there any body to tell me more about milk in a simple language with a conclusion how good it is or not as a nutrition. Thanks
caf@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX) (12/21/86)
In article <941@midas.UUCP> romans@midas.UUCP (Roman Slizynski) writes:
: Milk contains fat, cholesterol which is not really good for
: any one, ...
It isn't as simple as that.
1. Some cholesterol is necessary for good health.
2. Most of the body's cholesterol is manufactured from ingested
carbohydrates (sugar, etc.).
3. Whether cholesterol is good or bad is apparently determined
by what type of protien it is bound to - low density lipoprotiens are
the baddies, high density ones are the good guys.jin@hropus.UUCP (Jerry Natowitz) (12/22/86)
Low-fat milk is a rather nutrition dense food. That means that,
for the calories, it provides a lot of nutrition. There are a few
caveats to be attached to milk:
1) Many adults, and some children, are unable to easily digest the
carbohydrate component of milk - lactose. This is refered to as
lactase insufficiency, lactase being the enzyme that breaks lactose
down to it's component simple sugars: glucose and galactose.
The result is gas and diarrhea from the intestinal bacteria feasting
on the unabsorbed lactose. Lact-Aid is either a product that can
be added to milk or the milk itself with the product (don't remember
which) that will "pre-digest" the lactose.
2) Cow's milk, of any fat content, is not a good substitute for human
milk. If my memory serves me correctly cow's milk is too high in protein
for human babies.
3) With the exception of skim milk all milk contains cholesterol and
saturated fatty acids. Most authorities agree that adults should avoid
these in their diet and many nutritionists feel that children should
have a low intake of cholesterol and saturated fats.
4) Many teens drink excessive amounts of milk to the exclusion of other
foods. This is probably better then loading up on candy and chips
but can result in an unbalanced diet.
--
Jerry Natowitz
Bell Labs - HR 2A-214
201-615-5178 (CORNET 295-5178)
ihnp4!hropus!jinwerner@aecom.UUCP (Craig Werner) (12/23/86)
In article <441@omen.UUCP>, caf@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX) writes: > In article <941@midas.UUCP> romans@midas.UUCP (Roman Slizynski) writes: > : Milk contains fat, cholesterol which is not really good for > : any one, ... > > It isn't as simple as that. > 1. Some cholesterol is necessary for good health. > 2. Most of the body's cholesterol is manufactured from ingested > carbohydrates. The body utilizes in any given day just short of a gram of cholesterol. Of that about 600 mg is synthesized by the body itself, primarily in the liver. The remaining 300 mg is extracted from the diet (that's an american diet). There is indeed quite a bit of fat and cholesterol in milk, and one would EXPECT that serum cholesterol (the only number that really matters) would rise with milk intake. It doesn't. It actually goes down a very small amount. Paradoxical yes, but biology is stranger than nature. And milk is a complex homogeneous suspension. Oh, this is not without precedence. It is generally agreed that high sodium intake causes increased blood pressure in suseptible humans. At least that's true for Sodium Chloride (normal table salt). However, Monosodium glutamate (one molecule Sodium, one molecule glutamate) causes a slight fall in blood pressure. Again paradoxical, and please no flames about Chinese Restaurant Syndrome. While I'm at it, let me talk about Fish Oils. The claims of these new wonder supplements (that is omega-6 fatty acids) is that they lower serum cholesterol. They don't. The Eskimos have a high serum cholesterol. What they lack is the expected mortality rate from cardiovascular disease that generally goes with a high serum cholesterol. There's a subtle difference there, and I thought I'd point it out. Furthermore, it is not generally appreciated that these pills are fatty acids. And the daily dose of these supplements provides about 300 calories. So one wonders if any of these studies can really be applied to the american population in other than a clinical trial situation (where those 300 calories replaces 300 calories of other fat, instead of supplementing it.) -- Craig Werner (MD/PhD '91) !philabs!aecom!werner (1935-14E Eastchester Rd., Bronx NY 10461, 212-931-2517) "If I don't see you soon, I'll see you later."
tait@gec-mi-at.co.uk (Phil Tait) (01/08/87)
In response to one of the points that have been made, namely, avoidance of cholesterol in the diet : As usual, there are no simple answers. A friend of mine in the medical profession tells me of some research that seems to show that people with abnormally low cholesterol levels should be considered high cancer risk. One perhaps should balance, therefore, the risk of a (usually) lingering, painful end against the risk of a heart attack (painful, but probably quicker) :-(. = = = = = = = = = = = | Philip J. Tait, Marconi Instruments Ltd. | St. Albans, Herts. AL4 0JN, U.K. | | UUCP: ...mcvax!ukc!hrc63!miduet!tait | NRS : tait@gec-mi-at.co.uk | | Voice: +44 727 59292 x449 Telex: 297221 | Fax: +44 727 39447 | = = = = = = = = = = =