Does Adding Milk Block the Benefits of Coffee?

Does Adding Milk Block the Benefits of Coffee?
4.76 (95.19%) 108 votes

How to choose the healthiest coffee, and the effects of adding milk vs. soymilk.

Discuss
Republish

Below is an approximation of this video’s audio content. To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video.

This is a graph of mortality versus coffee consumption, suggesting coffee drinkers live longer than non-coffee drinkers. This may be because “[C]offee [may have beneficial effects on] inflammation, lung function, insulin sensitivity, and depression.” This may be in part because of a class of polyphenol phytonutrients found in coffee beans called chlorogenic acids, proven to have favorable effects with studies like these, where they just give it alone in pill form and can show beneficial effects—such as “acute blood pressure-lowering” activity, dropping the top and bottom blood pressure numbers within hours of consumption. Okay, so which coffee has the most? We know how to choose the reddest tomato, the deepest orange sweet potato, since many of the plant pigments are the antioxidants themselves. How do you choose the healthiest coffee?

More than a hundred coffees were tested, and different coffees had different caffeine levels, but the chlorogenic acid levels varied by more than 30-fold. “As a consequence, coffee selection may have a large influence on the potential health potential of coffee intake.” So, all those studies that show that “one cup of coffee” does this or that; what does that even mean when coffee can vary so greatly? Interestingly, “[t]he major contributor to [the] wide range [was the coffee] purchased from Starbucks which had an extremely low [chlorogenic acid] content,” averaging 10 times lower than the others. Maybe it’s because they roast their beans too dark. The more you roast, the less there is. They appear to be partially destroyed by roasting. Caffeine is pretty stable, but a dark roast may wipe out nearly 90% of the chlorogenic acid content of the beans.

The difference between a medium-light roast and a medium roast were not enough, though, to make a difference in total antioxidant status in people’s bloodstreams after drinking them—they both gave about the same boost. Other factors, such as how you prepare it, or decaffeination, don’t appear to have a major effect. What about adding milk?

Longtime fans may remember this ancient video, where the “addition of milk” was shown to prevent the “protective effects of tea” on artery function. Drink black tea, and you get a significant improvement in vascular function within hours, “whereas addition of milk completely blunted the effects of tea.” Here’s the big boost in artery function you get drinking tea, but drink the same amount of tea with milk, and it’s like you never drank the tea at all. They think it’s the casein to blame—one of the milk proteins binding up the tea phytonutrients. Bottom line, this “finding that the tea-induced improvement in vascular function is completely attenuated after addition of milk may have broad implications on the mode of tea preparation and consumption.” In other words, maybe we should not add milk to tea, or put cream on our berries. Appears to have the same effect on berry phytonutrients, or chocolate—check this out. Eat milk chocolate, and nothing much happens to the antioxidant power of your bloodstream. But eat dark chocolate, and get a nice spike within an hour of consumption.

Yeah, but is that just because the milk in milk chocolate crowds out some of the antioxidant-rich cocoa? Milk chocolate may only be like 20% cocoa, whereas a good dark chocolate may be like 70% or more cocoa solids. No, it’s not just that. Here’s how much of this cocoa phytonutrient you get into your bloodstream eating dark chocolate compared to milk chocolate. Eat that same amount of dark chocolate, but with a glass of milk, and it blocks about half.

Okay, that’s cocoa beans; what about coffee beans? “When milk was added to the coffee [in like a test tube], antioxidant activity decreased” by more than half with just a splash of milk, and down like 95% in a latte, or something with lots of milk.

Okay, but what happens in a test tube doesn’t necessarily happen in a person. You don’t know…until you put it to the test. And indeed, over the course of a day, significantly fewer chlorogenic acids made it into people’s bloodstreams drinking coffee with milk compared to black—cutting absorption by more than half.

What about soy milk? In a test tube, coffee phytonutrients do appear to bind not only to dairy proteins, but also egg and soy proteins. You can see how they did this computer modeling, showing how these coffee compounds can dock inside the nooks and crannies of dairy, egg white, and soy proteins, but what happens in a test tube or computer simulation doesn’t necessarily happen in a person. Eggs haven’t been put to the test, so we don’t know if having omelets with your black coffee would impair absorption, and neither has soy milk… until now.

Yeah, either way soy milk has some inherent benefits over cow’s milk, but does it have the same nutrient-blocking effects? And the answer is…no. No significant difference in the absorption of coffee phytonutrients drinking coffee black or with soy milk. What seemed to be happening is that the soy proteins do initially bind the coffee compounds up in the small intestine, but then your good bacteria can release them so they can be absorbed down in the lower intestine. So, “considering the reversible nature of binding,” as opposed to the dairy proteins, “it seems not to be as relevant” as to whether or not you add soy milk.

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Image credit: StockSnap via Pixabay. Image has been modified.

Motion graphics by Avocado Video.

Below is an approximation of this video’s audio content. To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video.

This is a graph of mortality versus coffee consumption, suggesting coffee drinkers live longer than non-coffee drinkers. This may be because “[C]offee [may have beneficial effects on] inflammation, lung function, insulin sensitivity, and depression.” This may be in part because of a class of polyphenol phytonutrients found in coffee beans called chlorogenic acids, proven to have favorable effects with studies like these, where they just give it alone in pill form and can show beneficial effects—such as “acute blood pressure-lowering” activity, dropping the top and bottom blood pressure numbers within hours of consumption. Okay, so which coffee has the most? We know how to choose the reddest tomato, the deepest orange sweet potato, since many of the plant pigments are the antioxidants themselves. How do you choose the healthiest coffee?

More than a hundred coffees were tested, and different coffees had different caffeine levels, but the chlorogenic acid levels varied by more than 30-fold. “As a consequence, coffee selection may have a large influence on the potential health potential of coffee intake.” So, all those studies that show that “one cup of coffee” does this or that; what does that even mean when coffee can vary so greatly? Interestingly, “[t]he major contributor to [the] wide range [was the coffee] purchased from Starbucks which had an extremely low [chlorogenic acid] content,” averaging 10 times lower than the others. Maybe it’s because they roast their beans too dark. The more you roast, the less there is. They appear to be partially destroyed by roasting. Caffeine is pretty stable, but a dark roast may wipe out nearly 90% of the chlorogenic acid content of the beans.

The difference between a medium-light roast and a medium roast were not enough, though, to make a difference in total antioxidant status in people’s bloodstreams after drinking them—they both gave about the same boost. Other factors, such as how you prepare it, or decaffeination, don’t appear to have a major effect. What about adding milk?

Longtime fans may remember this ancient video, where the “addition of milk” was shown to prevent the “protective effects of tea” on artery function. Drink black tea, and you get a significant improvement in vascular function within hours, “whereas addition of milk completely blunted the effects of tea.” Here’s the big boost in artery function you get drinking tea, but drink the same amount of tea with milk, and it’s like you never drank the tea at all. They think it’s the casein to blame—one of the milk proteins binding up the tea phytonutrients. Bottom line, this “finding that the tea-induced improvement in vascular function is completely attenuated after addition of milk may have broad implications on the mode of tea preparation and consumption.” In other words, maybe we should not add milk to tea, or put cream on our berries. Appears to have the same effect on berry phytonutrients, or chocolate—check this out. Eat milk chocolate, and nothing much happens to the antioxidant power of your bloodstream. But eat dark chocolate, and get a nice spike within an hour of consumption.

Yeah, but is that just because the milk in milk chocolate crowds out some of the antioxidant-rich cocoa? Milk chocolate may only be like 20% cocoa, whereas a good dark chocolate may be like 70% or more cocoa solids. No, it’s not just that. Here’s how much of this cocoa phytonutrient you get into your bloodstream eating dark chocolate compared to milk chocolate. Eat that same amount of dark chocolate, but with a glass of milk, and it blocks about half.

Okay, that’s cocoa beans; what about coffee beans? “When milk was added to the coffee [in like a test tube], antioxidant activity decreased” by more than half with just a splash of milk, and down like 95% in a latte, or something with lots of milk.

Okay, but what happens in a test tube doesn’t necessarily happen in a person. You don’t know…until you put it to the test. And indeed, over the course of a day, significantly fewer chlorogenic acids made it into people’s bloodstreams drinking coffee with milk compared to black—cutting absorption by more than half.

What about soy milk? In a test tube, coffee phytonutrients do appear to bind not only to dairy proteins, but also egg and soy proteins. You can see how they did this computer modeling, showing how these coffee compounds can dock inside the nooks and crannies of dairy, egg white, and soy proteins, but what happens in a test tube or computer simulation doesn’t necessarily happen in a person. Eggs haven’t been put to the test, so we don’t know if having omelets with your black coffee would impair absorption, and neither has soy milk… until now.

Yeah, either way soy milk has some inherent benefits over cow’s milk, but does it have the same nutrient-blocking effects? And the answer is…no. No significant difference in the absorption of coffee phytonutrients drinking coffee black or with soy milk. What seemed to be happening is that the soy proteins do initially bind the coffee compounds up in the small intestine, but then your good bacteria can release them so they can be absorbed down in the lower intestine. So, “considering the reversible nature of binding,” as opposed to the dairy proteins, “it seems not to be as relevant” as to whether or not you add soy milk.

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Image credit: StockSnap via Pixabay. Image has been modified.

Motion graphics by Avocado Video.

Doctor's Note

The video I referred to is Nutrient-Blocking Effects of Dairy. I was excited to see all the new data. Here’s more on the pros/cons of coffee:

Here’s the effects of dairy on berries: Benefits of Blueberries for Blood Pressure May Be Blocked by Yogurt.

I can imagine folks wondering about other milks. Almond, rice, and coconut-based milks have so little protein that I doubt there’d be a blocking effect, but they’ve never been tested directly to my knowledge.

Here are some answers to common soy questions I get:

If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my videos for free by clicking here.

196 responses to “Does Adding Milk Block the Benefits of Coffee?

Comment Etiquette

On NutritionFacts.org, you'll find a vibrant community of nutrition enthusiasts, health professionals, and many knowledgeable users seeking to discover the healthiest diet to eat for themselves and their families. As always, our goal is to foster conversations that are insightful, engaging, and most of all, helpful – from the nutrition beginners to the experts in our community.

To do this we need your help, so here are some basic guidelines to get you started.

The Short List

To help maintain and foster a welcoming atmosphere in our comments, please refrain from rude comments, name-calling, and responding to posts that break the rules (see our full Community Guidelines for more details). We will remove any posts in violation of our rules when we see it, which will, unfortunately, include any nicer comments that may have been made in response.

Be respectful and help out our staff and volunteer health supporters by actively not replying to comments that are breaking the rules. Instead, please flag or report them by submitting a ticket to our help desk. NutritionFacts.org is made up of an incredible staff and many dedicated volunteers that work hard to ensure that the comments section runs smoothly and we spend a great deal of time reading comments from our community members.

Have a correction or suggestion for video or blog? Please contact us to let us know. Submitting a correction this way will result in a quicker fix than commenting on a thread with a suggestion or correction.

View the Full Community Guidelines

    1. Konrad

      Good link. Thanks. That is a sound assessment of the problems of relying on observational studies alone.

      However, it ignores the fact that a number of experimental studies (some cited as sources for this video) indicate that coffee consumption improves markers of cardiovascular system health and antioxidant status. Taken together, the observational studies and experimental studies make a credible (but not conclusive) case for coffee’s health benefits including lowering mortality risk.

      1. Tom, I believe we are going over ild ground.

        Coca and Milk

        ‘Cocoa powder dissolved in milk, as one of the most common ways of cocoa powder consumption, did not change the bioavailability of cocoa powder flavonoids in healthy humans [12]. Furthermore, lipid and protein rich meals did not affect the bioavailability of cocoa polyphenols. However the uptake of flavonols in humans could be increased significantly by concurrent consumption of carbohydrates [13].’

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2790109/

        Tea and Milk

        The origin of the 2006-7 tea/milk research study quoted by Dr G is concealed for very obvious reasons – because it is worthless. The claim is that milk should not be added to black or green tea because it irreversibly binds valuable tea polyphenols, making them permanently unavailable to the body. This is NOT true. The conclusions were based on the research of Lorenz et al, and Nesteo et al – which are no more than in-vitro studies. Subsequent research (Xie et al, Oct 2013, Moser et al, December 2014) demonstrate that when adding milk to tea (i.e., pre-consumption) milk minerals immediately increase tea flavanol bioaccessibility, milk protein (casein) reduce tea flavanol bioaccessibility – but the latter is completely reversed during human digestion (post consumption). Thus, the addition of milk increases (not decreases) the net bioavailability of tea polyphenols.
        Reference 1: Moser et al, Dec 2014

        Milk protein, most notably S-CSN, significantly decreased (p < 0.05) bioaccessibility of flavan-3-ols relative to JK buffer controls (10 relative to 32%). Interestingly, the presence of milk minerals significantly increased (p < 0.05) flavan-3-ol bioaccessibility compared to that of controls (32 relative to 18%). These data combined with SDS-PAGE and fluorometric analyses suggest that both milk proteins and minerals may alter flavan-3-ol bioaccessibility, but normal GI digestion appears to minimize the impact of specific protein interactions.

        http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0963996914006188

        Reference 2: Xie et al, Oct 2013

        To summarize, these data suggest that milk addition may increase catechin bioavailability by enhancing their transepithelial absorption and uptake from green tea extract.

        http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0963996912003079

        Earlier research published in a 1997 issue of The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition suggested that the addition of milk to tea interferes with catechin absorption. However, several more recent studies, including one published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry in 2007, found that milk does not affect catechin absorption.

        https://www.todaysdietitian.com/newarchives/011211p32.shtml

        In short, this presentation unhelpfully ‘dumbs down’ the science in a very selective manner. As further demonstrated by these studies:

        1. ‘the assays used to measure antioxidant activity, and sampling size likely account for different findings. Interactions between tea polyphenols and milk proteins, especially between catechins and caseins, could account for a decrease in antioxidant activity, although other mechanisms are also possible, given the similar effects between soy and bovine milk’.

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26517348

        2. ‘using lipid peroxidation method, we noticed of the antioxidant activity of all the polyphenols changed (from 6% up to 75%) after the addition of alpha-casein. The results show using this method the larger gallate esters containing polyphenols epicatechingallate (ECG) and (epigallocatechingallate (EGCG) were less affected by the presence of casein than smaller polyphenols catechins (C), epicatechin (EC) and epicgallocatechine (EGC).

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24001682

        3. ‘when plant phenols are consumed along with food macronutrients, the bioavailability and bioactivity of polyphenols can be significantly affected. The protein–polyphenol complexes can significantly change the plasma kinetics profile but do not affect the absorption of polyphenols. Carbohydrates can enhance the absorption and extend the time needed to reach a maximal plasma concentration of polyphenols, and fats can enhance the absorption and change the absorption kinetics of polyphenols. Moreover, as highlighted in the present review, not only a nutrient alone but also certain synergisms between food macronutrients have a significant effect on the bioavailability and biological activity of polyphenols.

        ‘Recently, we showed that milk protein–polyphenol complexes lead to significant changes in the plasma kinetics profile but do not affect the absorption and bioactivity of polyphenols both in rats and in human subjects( 9 , 10 )

        2014, Zhang et al – https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/nutrition-research-reviews/article/interaction-of-plant-phenols-with-food-macronutrients-characterisation-and-nutritionalphysiological-consequences

        Based on the subsequent and more exhaustive studies of Moser and Xie, milk added to tea (including both black and green tea) enhances tea polyphenol levels where it counts, in the gut. Any advice to the contrary seems contrary to the public interest.

        Coffee

        This study found 17% of 5-CQA (chlorogenic acid) remained complexed to milk proteins and peptides to the end of digestion.

        http://cafeesaude.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Ac%C3%A7%C3%A3o-caf%C3%A9-com-leite-G-S-Duarte-and-A-Farah-Jorunal-of-Agricultural-and-Food-Chemistry-Accepted-Manuscript-June-2011.pdf

        There is no good reason this should be a problem for anyone. But if it is, a better solution (in terms of both taste and nutrition) is to increase the consumption of coffee by 17%. Which will be far more achievable and enjoyable with the addition of milk. Most wont say likewise for soy milk in coffee.

        1. Well I won’t speak for the science, really it is not a concern of mine, if milk does or does not enhance bioavailability.

          But this…”Which will be far more achievable and enjoyable with the addition of milk. Most wont say likewise for soy milk in coffee.”
          What most is that? Your most I guess as my most…find drinking a thing that came from a animals tit…barbaric and a bit insane.

          Where else is that found in nature?. Not all things in nature are good of course, but if that is so good I suppose some other specie would have come across that good and endeavored it habituated to it and be found alive and well doing that thing today…. but none seem to be doing that.
          And we presuppose it is natural and good as select nutrients are made more bioavailable to us……what about sat fat and other component that make it firmly bad for us….more made up science by Dr Greger then that?

          1. Hi MV Ron In NM!

            We go to Santa Fe now and then and will soon be going to ABQ to give a talk on dream psychology. Do you have any FAVE restaurants (Vegan or very friendly V)?

            I am SO glad Soy works well with coffee, tea, and perhaps berries? Is adding berries too much to hope for?

            1. I live rural about 20 minutes from Albuquerque. But one restaurant I do frequent when I go there is An Hy Quan.
              It sounds typical Vietnamese but the place actually serves good vegan foods as well, run by a gringo.
              1405 I think it is, Juan Tabo, found by going north off of I-40 a mile or so on the west(volcano) side of the street.

              If you are in the university area there are plenty. But if you like college atmosphere, cafeteria like, draws kids but also a wide mix, there is the Frontier directly across from UNM. Far from vegetarian or vegan, but they have a vegetarian burrito plate which can be ordered without cheese…. I find it very tasty but do like hot chili.

          2. Ron,
            As I have repeated many times on this forum I argue purely on the basis of nutritional science. In this instance science which falsely declares that milk reduces the polyphenol levels in tea. In-vivo research subsequent to the outdated in-vitro research quoted by Dr G found the exact opposite – once milk/tea has been digested. Are we to believe Dr G (who is a very impressive researcher) was not aware of any of this? As so often occurs, the correct information was purposely excluded from his presentation.
            Another example of misleading information:

            They found that “[c]ows’ milk stimulated the growth of [human] prostate cancer cells in each of 14 separate experiments, producing an average increase in [cancer] growth rate of over 30%. In contrast, almond milk suppressed the growth of these cancer cells by over 30%.”Jan 24, 2014

            https://nutritionfacts.org/video/prostate-cancer-and-organic-milk-vs-almond-milk/

            What is deliberately omitted is that soy milk also increased the growth of cancer in breast tissue.

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22043817

            Thats called cherry-picking.

            I have no argument with those choosing not to consume milk on ethical or environmental grounds. However, it is completely wrong to use fake science as a means of validating such a decision.

            1. I know what cherry picking is. I just looked at one of your references, for kicks, the last one…..”Milk stimulates growth of prostate cancer cells in culture”

              In culture….

              I will not bother with the rest, really, I will just not drink the filthy stuff. You are clearly referencing milk as being enjoyable and superior in that regard to soy milk, as I interpret your comment I copied……..”Which will be far more achievable and enjoyable with the addition of milk. Most wont say likewise for soy milk in coffee.”
              So if you claim to stick to the science and science only I suggest sticking to it. Leave the enjoyable part out.
              I will not bother with the science as it is a completely distasteful thing to drink. Unless I am incited to explore the science for some reason.

              If you want to incite me, please do continue to infer I do not know what cherry picking, is and I must enjoy your filthy drink…..
              I may then explore the contentions versed. Till then they little interest me, My dog on occasion eats its own poop. It may have by study very much nutritionally to recommend it. I also will not explore that, as it little interests me. Unless others perhaps start saying I must enjoy
              that thing as well..then I may explore it.

              So….?

              1. “…..My dog on occasion eats its own poop.”
                – – – – – – – – –

                Y’see now, that’s why cats are so much more intelligent than dogs. A cat would never stoop to such depravity. ;-)

              2. Ron,

                You miss the point.

                ‘”Milk stimulates growth of prostate cancer cells in culture”

                This was a reference to a study quoted by Dr G in which he (simplistically) linked the consumption of milk with prostate cancer (see Dr G’s report – https://nutritionfacts.org/video/prostate-cancer-and-organic-milk-vs-almond-milk/). The same study also found an association between soy milk and breast cancer. Guess which of these facts were omitted from Dr G’s report? Yep, the soymilk/breast cancer association. That is generally called ‘cherry picking’.
                I dont hit a hoot whether you drink milk – or your own urine for that matter. But I will remind you what website you are connected to: Its called ‘Nutrition Facts’, and it purports to present SCIENTIFIC nutritional information. Not a dogmatic, semi-religious argument for veganism, which is what you seem to be doing. Stick to ethical and/or environmental objections to dairy and nobody cares less whether Ron denies himself the most nutritious food on planet earth. All the more for the millions of starving children on this plant who die of malnutrition because of a lack of the essential amino acids that milk provide.

                1. Who exactly is missing the point here? You want to draw me or others into another useless discussion on your claimed faults with Dr Greger….so what else is new. Some nut jobs come here about every week or so, throw some studies around(in your specific quite a few) and expect all of us to humbly listen while they expound upon the truth for us.

                  Why that I always say…why that? Is it as they are deranged, and have some inner compulsion to derive satisfaction from disruption? Akin to trolling but with a finer nuance to it. A intellectual troll if you will. Enlightening us all.
                  This is Dr Gregers blog, not a you tube blog, why come here with your nonsense?

                  What exactly is the point….you can expound with great discourse on your various and sundry claims on the favorance of milk so please do…oh great one…expound about exactly why you are here going on with this nonsense?
                  That is my point as evidently you fail to see it.

                  1. How many times exactly have you rolled out these same studies and claimed the same objections here, and had peoples respond with the offer of contrary opinion substantiated by study?….. to no result….be honest now.

                    Now..substantiate your claim…”Ron denies himself the most nutritious food on planet earth.” Show me published study peer reviewed which attests to this as fact…..

                    1. Here is a list from a milk industry source of the things that may be found in milk before it begins to be processed.
                      It seems this most perfect of foods must indeed be processed or we may get very sick and die as a result..
                      “This page describes milkborne pathogens and their associated illnesses, and several other important microorganisms in milk. A table summarizing the disease characteristics of the major milk pathogens is presented at the beginning of this section, followed by a more detailed discussion of the microorganisms in milk, listed in alphabetical order: Brucella spp., Campylobacter jejuni, Coliforms, Coxiella burnetii, Escherichia coli O157:H7, Listeria monocytogenes, Mycobacterium bovis and tuberculosis, Mycobacterium paratuberculosis, Psychrotrophic Bacteria, Salmonella spp., and Yersinia enterocolitica. “

                    2. Here from a general source is the nutritional composite of milk…..
                      “Total Fat7.9 g
                      12%
                      Saturated fat4.6 g
                      23%
                      Polyunsaturated fat0.5 g
                      Monounsaturated fat2 g
                      Cholesterol24 mg
                      8%
                      Sodium105 mg
                      4%
                      Potassium322 mg
                      9%
                      Total Carbohydrate12 g
                      4%
                      Dietary fiber0 g
                      0%
                      Sugar12 g
                      Protein7.7 g
                      15%
                      Vitamin A
                      8%
                      Calcium
                      28%
                      Vitamin D
                      31%
                      Vitamin B-12
                      0%
                      Vitamin C
                      0%
                      Iron
                      1%
                      Vitamin B-6

                      You have made a claim now support it…..” Ron denies himself the most nutritious food on planet earth. ”
                      Specific to this I claim, sat fat and/or cholesterol are in general productive of arterial plaque in part and then are not indicative of a thing claimed to be the most nutritious food on earth.

                      So show study that they do not contain these items or that sat fat/cholesterol are not indicated in a part of the formative process of arterial plaque creation.

                    3. New Research Could Banish Guilty Feeling for Consuming Whole Dairy Products

                      Article ID: 697313

                      Released: 11-Jul-2018

                      Newswise — HOUSTON – (July 11, 2018) – Enjoying full-fat milk, yogurt, cheese and butter is unlikely to send people to an early grave, according to new research by The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (UTHealth).

                      The study, published today in the *American Journal of Clinical Nutrition*, found no significant link between dairy fats and cause of death or, more specifically, heart disease and stroke – two of the country’s biggest killers often associated with a diet high in saturated fat. In fact, certain types of dairy fat may help guard against having a severe stroke, the researchers reported.

                      “Our findings not only support, but also significantly strengthen, the growing body of evidence which suggests that dairy fat, contrary to popular belief, does not increase risk of heart disease or overall mortality in older adults. In addition to not contributing to death, the results suggest that one fatty acid present in dairy may lower risk of death from cardiovascular disease, particularly from stroke,” said Marcia Otto, Ph.D., the study’s first and corresponding author and assistant professor in the Department of Epidemiology, Human Genetics and Environmental Sciences at UTHealth School of Public Health.

                      Dariush Mozaffarian, M.D., of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University, was senior author of the study, funded by the National Institutes of Health.

                      The study evaluated how multiple biomarkers of fatty acid present in dairy fat related to heart disease and all-cause mortality over a 22-year period.
                      This measurement methodology, as opposed to the more commonly used self-reported consumption, gave greater and more objective insight into the impact of long-term exposure to these fatty acids, according to the report.

                      Nearly 3,000 adults age 65 years and older were included in the study, which measured plasma levels of three different fatty acids found in dairy products at the beginning in 1992 and again at six and 13 years later.

                      None of the fatty acid types were significantly associated with total mortality. In fact one type was linked to lower cardiovascular disease deaths. People with higher fatty acid levels, suggesting higher consumption of whole-fat dairy products, had a 42 percent lower risk of dying from stroke.

                      The 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans currently recommend serving fat-free or low-fat dairy, including milk, cheese, yogurt, and/or fortified soy beverages. But Otto pointed out that low-fat dairy foods such as low-fat yogurt and chocolate milk often include high amounts of added sugars, which may lead to poor cardiovascular and metabolic health.

                      “Consistent with previous findings, our results highlight the need to revisit current dietary guidance on whole fat dairy foods, which are rich sources of nutrients such as calcium and potassium. These are essential for health not only during childhood but throughout life, particularly also in later years when undernourishment and conditions like osteoporosis are more common,” Otto said.

                      Evidence-based research is key to educating people about nutrition, Otto said.

                      “Consumers have been exposed to so much different and conflicting information about diet, particularly in relation to fats,” she said. “It’s therefore important to have robust studies, so people can make more balanced and informed choices based on scientific fact rather than hearsay,” she added.

                      The research was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (grant R01HL085710 and R01HL085710-07S1).

                      http://www.newswise.com/articles/new-research-could-banish-guilty-feeling-for-consuming-whole-dairy-products

                  2. Ron. It is because I hate fake or distorted news so much. And those who manipulate information for some ulterior motive. So that we no longer know black from white, or up from down. It is a disorientation I can live without. I have no objection whatsoever to a vegan/vegetarian website that offers its readers a multitude of nutritional alternatives to dairy because of ethical or environmental concerns. I believe at times it is an indulgence, but it is a valid enough premise. But that should not translate to SELECTIVE scientific criticism of dairy, and the SELECTIVE omission of unsupported science to reinforce the message. This makes it completely impossible to come to come to a rational decision based on the science.
                    Which is the purported purpose of this website. The risk is that more gullible individuals substitute science with a quasi-religious belief system. And making scientific choices on the basis of emotional factors.
                    That is, a preferred or comfortable truth, rather than actual truth. The vast bulk of scientific evidence (meta-analysis) demonstrate that dairy is nutritionally beneficial. Not harmful as Dr G. would have you believe. His take is not objective, and he chooses to propagate this lack of objectivity. I make this point for one reason, and one reason only. So you can make a more informed choice. If you prefer instead to make an exclusively ethical choice then all power to you. Finally, it is not ‘disruptive’ to fully inform, unless the reader prefers not to be fully informed. Unfortunately, this is where you are at.

                    1. Pete, I gotta admit an occasional stick of Organic Valley mozzarella string cheese sure does taste mighty fine. *_^

                    2. Thats the spirit YR. Your continuing mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, and boldly go where no one has gone before

                    3. Where I am at is understanding you are making unsubstantiated claims. You clearly state milk as the most nutritious food on earth and now state is has nutritive value.
                      So I can only assume I made my point successfully.
                      I think Tom has addressed the other concerns you voice on this or that study you mention.

                      I actually am a ethical vegan, and really do not care so much of the health aspect. But I will verse against Dr Greger when it is a case I think of cherry picking.
                      The known and admitted dangers of sat fat consumption identified by almost all the national bodies studying nutrition and offering recommendation as evidenced by their limitations of consumption is clearly present.
                      I know you can produce many studies showing no fault. I can show each year at least 400 studies averse to climate change. But we have in any given year 40 thousand or so attesting to its presence. So if we want a thing we will find it. The final answer is in consenseus. All nations excepting one admit to it. All nutritional concerns of a authority and national and global focus have a sat fat limitation regard.

                      Those are the facts.

                    4. Pete,

                      Well, I was brought up in the cheese state (American’s Dairyland), so there’s that….

                      But I’m a risk-taker, all right. I could tell you stories!

        2. Thanks for the references Pete. I shall go over them.

          However, I always remember that you are a staunch advocate of dairy products and that this may bias your arguments and the citations you offer. At least n Greger’s case, he is arguing that both dairy and soy milk interfere with the bioavailability of various healthful components in coffee, whereas you are defending cow’s milk whie knocking soy milk. Your claim that studies showing impaired absorption are ‘worthless’ is simply wrong. Milk does appear ti impair absorption although bioavailability of some pecific nutrients appears unaffected. That is a very one-eyed claim.

          The main reasons though that I am sceptical about your argument are twofold. One is that I am British by birth and a big tea drinker and the second is that dairy foods are high in saturated fat.

          Regarding the first one, studies have found significant health benefits from tea consumption in Europe and the US, where tea is routinely consumed without milk (although sometimes with lemon). In the UK on the other hand, where tea is routinely consumed with milk, no such benefits have been found and at least one study found that greater consumption of tea was associated with increased ischemic heart disease mortality (more than twice the relative risk of people consuming fewer than two cups per day). The authors commented:

          “We conclude that intake of antioxidant flavonols is not inversely associated with IHD risk in the United Kingdom. Possibly, flavonols from tea to which milk is added are not absorbed; experimental evidence suggests that adding milk to tea abolishes the plasma antioxidant-raising capacity of tea. The apparent association between tea consumption and increased mortality in this population merits further investigation.”
          https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/65/5/1489/4655497

          It was studies like these, more than 20 years ago, which persuaded me to give up drinking tea with milk, and just take it black. Ditto for coffee.

          Secondly, there is the fact that milk is high in saturated fat and reducing saturated fat consumption appears to reduce cardiovascular disease risk.
          https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000510

          This conclusion by an expert panel is underpinned by numerous studies including eg Harvard’s analysis

          “What did predict risk of cardiovascular disease was “fat swapping.” When dairy fat was replaced with the same number of calories from vegetable fat or polyunsaturated fat, the risk of cardiovascular disease dropped by 10% and 24%, respectively. Furthermore, replacing the same number of calories from dairy fat with healthful carbohydrates from whole grains was associated with a 28% lower risk of cardiovascular disease.
          Replacing dairy fat with other types of animal fat, such as from red meat, predicted a modest 6% higher risk of cardiovascular disease.”
          https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2016/10/25/dairy-fat-cardiovascular-disease-risk/

          Frankly, I can see no good reason to consume cow’s milk in coffee or anywhere else whatever its short term effects on specific flavenoid or polyphenol biomarkers

          1. thanks Tom. I am pressed for time. I will reply when I get a spare moment. After studying milk and nutrition for over a decade I can say I am well and truly biased in favour of milk. But this is based upon a vast body of scientific knowledge – even allowing for ‘Big Dairy. The possible exception is prostate cancer. Where there is some weak evidence, but this has to be weighed against its protective effect against metabolic syndrome, breast and colon cancer, etc. And, in any event the situation with prostate cancer is extremely complex.

            ‘Supplemental calcium was associated with increased risk of fatal prostate cancer’

            The diverging results for types of dairy products and sources of calcium suggest that other components of dairy rather than fat and calcium may increase prostate cancer risk.

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25527754

            And this study of 27,000 Asian vegetarians:

            ‘These data suggest a positive association with calcium at relatively low levels and from primarily non-dairy food sources. In conclusion, our findings warrant further experimental exploration into the possible roles of calcium, as opposed to other dairy product components, in prostate carcinogenesis’.

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4219618/

            These matters are extraordinarily complex, but fingering dairy all the time, is at best, very misleading.

            1. As we all know by now, mammalian milks are species specific. Human being milk is 1.1% protein, 4.5%fat. Cow milk is 22% protein, 50% fat. Rat milk is 49% protein.Indian buffalo milk is 17%protein, 62% fat. Goat is 22% protein, 53% fat. Whale is 34.8% fat and 13.6 %protein. Sheep is 5.3% fat and 5.5% protein. Dog: 8.3%F and 9.5%Protein.
              Decades ago, when the original nutritional studies were being performed and researched, the “protein recommendations” for human beings were suggested and developed on the foundational work of the protein characteristics of rat milk. Because rats were easy to study. It didn’t occur to the researchers that milk species differences were something that needed to be looked at. This is where the very high suggestions for protein amounts originally came from. Rat babies double their weight in a number of weeks and need high protein amounts to ‘get going’ in life. Human babies grow much more slowly and require a different fuel.
              To me, it makes simple intuitive sense that if I were going to consume a mammalian milk that I would consume the milk of my own species i.e., a human being. But I would no more consume human being milk than any other milk as it is necessary only for mammalian babies to get quick nutrition for quick original growth as babies. There is no need for consumption of any mammalian milk of any species after weaning. Even cows don’t consume cow milk after weaning!!
              In my opinion, part of the confusion about whether “milk” (and I am meaning cow milk here) is good for us is the fact that the true use and meaning of what milk (of any species) is for has been obscured by the meat and dairy industry. It’s calories have certainly been beneficial in times of famine of the past. But we no longer have to worry about lack of food production (in this USA). (Getting food to certain areas is a different topic) The ultra concentrated calories of milk – of any species – is unnecessary. The disease of T2diabetes is actually a disease of excess – of too many calories.
              If one looks at the diet of our next of kin in nature – the chimpanzee – one sees that they don’t suckle milk of any species past infancy either. Their adult diet is basically vegan vegetarian with approximately 2% of their diet as meat from insects and the occasional carniverous episode (thank you DR. Jane Goodall).
              Milk – of any species – is simply unnecessary post infancy and can be shown to be harmful in its excess of calories and concentrated fats in adulthood when starvation is absent.

              1. I wholly support your view and arguments on milk. However, I am wondering what the source is for your statement “approximately 2% of their diet as meat from insects and the occasional carniverous episode”. I had a debate on this topic quite a while ago, in which someone made a similar claim citing Jane Goodall, and I have seen similar claims on some vegan websites. However, the percentages for both insects and meat seem to be significantly in error. Below e.g. is url from “Jane Goodall Canada” along with relevant quotes. You will note that insects are stated to be ~ 4% of their diet and meat abut 5-8%.

              2. Hi Ruth,

                Thanks for your comments. We can survive without milk, but we have to make some adjustments to our diet if we do so. Dairy is a concentrated form of nutrition. So consumed in moderation (as for example in the Mediterranean diet) it is a valuable adjunct in our diet.

                1. Over 10,000 years ago adult humans did not consume milk. But around that period the genome of humans adapted to consume milk. This adaption (which survives to today) was initiated by the introduction of farming, and enabled these people (mostly Europeans, some Africans) to prevail over the hunter-gatherers. That is, regardless of protein levels (which is somewhat irrelevant unless you are feeding infant humans) improved their survival.
                In short, the human genome (in these races at least) is a product of milk consumption. The problem for adult humans had nothing to do with protein levels, but lactose. Once the human genome adapted to lactose, adult humans got all the benefits of milk, including protein.

                2. If obesity is a problem, then one has to eat less calories. In western diets, most calories come from sugar, carbs and sometimes fats. If you are going to consume fats both milk fat (with its fat soluble vitamins, and protective CLA (conjugated linoleic acid in milk from grass-fed cows)) and extra virgin olive oil (oleic acid) should take preference. Those who tend to consume fats tend to consume less carbs, but time and space dont allow me to go into all the detail on the endless fat/carbs debate. (Incidentally, there is some remarkable research from Denmark demonstrating that (in-vivo) oleic acid bound with alpha-albumin in human and bovine milk produces a remarkably powerful anti-carcinogenic. Google ‘Hamlet’)

                3. There is any amount of evidence demonstrating that dairy reduces the risk of diabetes, and more generally, metabolic syndrome. (amongst other things, milk fat increases HDL (good) cholesterol, but its a long complicated story)

                *Meta-analysis*

                First, there is no evidence that the consumption of any form of dairy product is detrimentally associated with the risk of any cardiovascular-related clinical outcome. In fact, high-quality evidence supports favorable associations (i.e., decreased risk) between:

                total dairy intake and the risk of hypertension, and –

                low-fat dairy and yogurt intake and the risk of T2D (type 2 Diabetes)

                On the basis of the adapted GRADE criteria, we are confident that these associations are robust and hence unlikely to be modified by further research.

                Moreover, moderate-quality evidence suggests favorable associations between:

                intakes of total dairy, low-fat dairy, cheese, and fermented dairy products and the risk of stroke; –

                intakes of low-fat dairy and milk and the risk of hypertension; –

                intakes of total dairy and milk and the risk of MetS; and –

                intakes of total dairy and cheese and the risk of T2D.

                On the basis of the adapted GRADE criteria, these favorable associations are very likely. However, future studies may modify risk estimates toward confirmed favorable associations or toward the null.

                Finally, there is high- to moderate-quality evidence that:

                consumption of total dairy, cheese, and yogurt is neutral in terms of CVD risk; –

                consumption of all forms of dairy, except for fermented, is neutral in terms of CAD risk; –

                consumption of regular- and high-fat dairy, milk, and yogurt is neutral in terms of stroke risk; –

                consumption of regular- and high-fat dairy, cheese, yogurt, and fermented dairy is neutral in terms of risk of hypertension; and –

                consumption of regular- and high-fat dairy, milk, and fermented dairy is neutral in terms of risk T2D.

                *2. Is the recommendation to consume low-fat as opposed to regular- and high-fat dairy supported by the existing evidence?*

                First, there is no evidence from this extensive review that the consumption of dairy fat or of regular- and high-fat dairy is detrimental to cardiovascular-related clinical outcomes. More specifically, the:

                consumption of regular- and high-fat dairy is neutral in terms of risk of CAD, stroke, hypertension, and T2D, which is supported by high- to moderate-quality evidence; –

                consumption of low-fat dairy is neutral in terms of CAD risk, which is supported by high-quality evidence; and –

                consumption of low-fat dairy is favorably associated with the risk of stroke, hypertension, and T2D, which is supported by high- to moderate-quality evidence.

                In conclusion, this systematic review provides an in-depth perspective on the association between dairy product consumption and the risk of cardiovascular-related clinical outcomes, including MetS and T2D. Although there are still key research gaps to address, evidence suggests either a neutral or a favorable association between dairy intake and cardiovascular-related outcomes. These data are consistent with current dietary guidelines, which place dairy as one of the pillars of healthy eating. However, the review also emphasized that the recommendation to focus on low-fat in place of regular- and high-fat dairy is currently not evidence-based. Further research is needed to specifically address this key research gap.

                https://academic.oup.com/advances/article/7/6/1026/4568635

                1. This systematic review came to unsurprising conclusions since it

                  ” … was supported in part by an unrestricted grant from the Dairy Research Consortium (Dairy Farmers of Canada, Centre National Interprofessionnel de l’Économie Laitière, the Dairy Research Institute, Dairy Australia Ltd., the Dutch Dairy Association (NZO), the Danish Dairy Research Foundation ….”

                  It reminds me of the systematic reviews that found no association between staurted fat consumption and mortality, CVD etc – largely because they ignore both inconvenient contrary evidence and the effect of food/nutrient substitutions onhealth outcomes.

                  1. It’s funny how all these studies by people associated with the dairy industry, all seem to include a paragraph or more stating that the guidelines on saturated fat, sodium and dairy foods consumption all need to be revised upwards.

                    1. “To address this gap in the literature, a new study by Harvard Chan School researchers published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition investigated the relationship between dairy fat intake and risk of cardiovascular diseases, such as heart disease and stroke. (1) Researchers followed more than 43,000 men from the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, 87,000 women in the Nurses’ Health Study, and 90,000 women in the Nurses’ Healthy Study II to study the relationship between dairy fat and heart disease risk. The detailed information collected over several decades allowed the investigators to adjust for smoking, physical activity, and other factors known to influence the development of heart disease. For dairy lovers, the good news is that various foods including full-fat dairy milk, yogurt, butter, cheeses, and cream were not found to increase heart disease risk (compared to a background diet that typically contains high amounts of refined carbohydrates and sugars). However, it is important to note that these foods were not found to decrease risk either.”
                      https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2016/10/25/dairy-fat-cardiovascular-disease-risk/

                      In other words, diets high in dairy are no worse than the standard Amencan diet. I can accept that. I can also accept that diets high in saturated fat are no worse than the standard Amencan diet.

                      The dairy industries around the world use such studies to show that dairy foods do not increase risk and may even be beneficial (compared to even worse food choices). In the US at least, the industry is federally mandated (under the check-off programme) to spend significant sums on ‘research’ through funding nutritional studies. The Canadian industry appears no slouch either. Not least because the Canadian Government also spends many millions on dairy ‘research’, putting in about two and a half times as much ‘research’ money as the industry itself.
                      https://www.dairyresearch.ca/dairy-research-cluster.php

                      Little wonder then that we see so many studies over the years that appear to demonstrate benefits from dairy food consumption. I have previously put the term research in quotes because such studies from people with industry connections often give the impresssion of being thinly-disguised marketing and promotional pieces rather than warts-and-all investigations of dairy nutrition issues.

              3. What is post infancy? I am currently still breastfeeding my 18month old and have no idea when he can stop breastfeeding without relying on another form of milk… any ideas anyone?

          2. *and this*

            *….The incidence of prostate cancer (in vegans and vegetarians) was 25% higher than the national rate’. (page 3S)* *‘the incidence of colorectal cancer was significantly higher among vegetarians than among nonvegetarians’(page 6 S)*

            *‘The overall cancer incidence rates of both the vegetarians and the non-vegetarians in this study are low compared with national rates. Within the study, the incidence of all cancers combined was lower among vegetarians than among meat eaters, but the incidence of colorectal cancer was higher in vegetarians than in meat eaters.* *Am J Clin Nutr 2009;89(suppl):1S–7S’*

            EPIC-Oxford Study – a prospective study of 63,550 UK men and women

            http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.531.6456&rep=rep1&type=pdf

            (NB – this is not me promoting the consumption of meat – which I prefer not to do)

            1. Thanks Pete.

              As you say, it is complex. One of the key factors usually ignored in association studies is the substitution issue. That is, are the reported like;y to beassocations (positive or negative) due to consuming dairy foods or are they more likely to be a consequence of not consuming the foods that dairy replaced? In other words, are the effects primarily due to dairy replacing eg meat products, eggs, refined carbohydrates etc, or are they indeed a direct result of consuming dairy? I don’t think we know enough to say for certain at this stage.

              On the other hand, I did check out Campbell’s statement that casein appeared to switch cancer on and off, some years ago (his statement of course was in the context of rats given carcinogenic toxins) A PubMed search didn’t reveal any associations between casein consumption and cancer in humans – except for an association between casein consumption and advanced prostate cancer. As you know, whole milk consumption is also associated with elevated prostate cancer mortality.
              https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5073921/

              I would certainly agree that there are many unhealthy ‘vegan’ and ‘vegetarian’ diets. The health effects of such diets don’t necessarily reflect the dietary consequences of eating WFPB diets (which may – or may not – include some animal foods). Also, I tend not to take too much notIce of the EPIC study because many people take up vegetarian diets in response to health crises – if posters here over the years are typical. This can easily bias dietary associations with physical ill health as it apparently does with mental health disorders
              https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3466124/

              However, 7th Day Adventists are (presumably) more likely to have adopted such diets for religous reasons than immediate health reasons. It appears that, overall, Adventists do have lower cancer rates.
              https://publichealth.llu.edu/adventist-health-studies/findings/findings-past-studies/mortality-studies-seventh-day-adventists

              Many Adventists however are lacto-ovo ‘vegetarians’ (a contradiction in terms if ever I heard one) but nonetheless I am not aware of any finding of a protective effect against cancer for dairy consumption among Adventists although fruit and egumes did seem to have protective effects.
              https://publichealth.llu.edu/adventist-health-studies/findings/findings-past-studies/adventist-health-study-findings-cancer

              As for colon cancer, the Adventist studies found

              “The researchers looked at the relationship between diet and colon cancer. They found that individuals who ate beans at least two times a week had a 42 percent lower risk of developing colon cancer than those who said they ate beans less than once a week. They also discovered that individuals who ate flesh foods–defined as meat, fowl, and fish–several times each week, had a somewhat higher risk for colon cancer. On the other hand, those who ate more fiber, defined as indigestible carbohydrates found only in fruits and vegetables, experienced a 40 percent reduction in their risk of colon cancer.”
              https://publichealth.llu.edu/adventist-health-studies/findings/findings-past-studies/adventist-health-study-findings-cancer

              Again, I can see no reason to consume dairy – especially full fat dairy – since there is no good evidence that it is protective over and above the possible effect of displacing even more unhealthy foods from the diet, and there is good reason to think that full fat dairy does significanty increase cardiovascular disease risk. None of these concerns apply to consuming more whole plant foods to my knowledge.

              ” Furthermore, replacing the same number of calories from dairy fat with healthful carbohydrates from whole grains was associated with a 28% lower risk of cardiovascular disease.”
              https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2016/10/25/dairy-fat-cardiovascular-disease-risk/

              1. Sigh. Just call me Mr Fumblefingers

                “That is, are the reported associations (positive or negative) likely to be due to consuming dairy foods …..”

        3. I had a quick look at these papers. In my opinion, they do not bear all the weight you are attempting to place on them.

          For example, studies about the bioaccessibility of polyphenols from green tea when consumed with milk or milk solutions aren’t necessarily relevant to black tea consumption. And who drinks geen tea with milk anyway? Nobody to my knowledge, so why study it at all I wonder?

          The first two references do not demonstrate that milk has no effect on tea antioxdant activity (the first reference takes us to a broken link by the way) lthough selective quoting may give that impression.

          The comment about cocoa and milk is based on an abstract of another paper which found that there was a plasma concentration of 330.44 nmol/l of a particular metabolite when cocoa was consumed with water but only 273.7 when it was consumed with milk. According to my crude arithmetic, that is a 21% better absorption rate when consumed without milk. Yet the authors still managed to insist that “statistically” milk did not impair bioavailability. Gee, I wonder who funded that study?
          https://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/111473

          The Today’s Dietitian magazine comment refers to a 2007 study but curiously doesn’t provide a link.

          As for this “Based on the subsequent and more exhaustive studies of Moser and Xie, milk added to tea (including both black and green tea) enhances tea polyphenol levels where it counts, in the gut. Any advice to the contrary seems contrary to the public interest.”
          The only thing it is contrary to, is the interests of the dairy industry. And I ask again, who drinks green tea with milk? Nobody. What does the evidence say about black tea? According to Moser et al, studies show that adding milk to black tea decreased the vascorelaxation effects of consuming black tea and also alter enzyme activities. Increasing the bioavailability of the lower levels of polyphenols consequent to adding milk,seems at best a bit of a wash in any case, especially if there are other downstream effects such as decreasing beneficial effects on the vascular system of tea drinking..

          As I have comented before, there is no apparent benefit to drinking coffee or tea with milk unless addditional calories are wanted, so why do it? I have done both and IMO they taste better without milk. There is one exception though in my personal opinion – very strong coffees and teas need to be drunk with some kind of dilutant. Again though, I see no reason, other than long-established custom, why this should be cow’s milk since diry fat seems to have adverse effects on vascular health..

          1. Hi Tom, pressed for time at present. I will address your comments more directly in due course. There are hundreds of studies to quote, but this one is as close to home (Qld) I can find….

            *Dairy consumption and patterns of mortality of Australian adults*”. A prospective study with a 15-year follow-up period.

            *There was no consistent and significant association between total dairy intake and total or cause-specific mortality. However, compared with those with the lowest intake of full-fat dairy, participants with the highest intake (median intake 339 g/day) had reduced death due to CVD (HR: 0.31; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.12–0.79; P for trend = 0.04) after adjustment for calcium intake and other confounders. Intakes of low-fat dairy, specific dairy foods, calcium and vitamin D showed no consistent associations.People who ate the most full-fat dairy had a 69% lower risk of cardiovascular death than those who ate the least. Otherwise stated, people who mostly avoided dairy or consumed low-fat dairy had more than three times the risk of dying of coronary heart disease or stroke than people who ate the most full-fat diary. This result is an outlier, and also observational so difficult to interpret, but it certainly is difficult to reconcile with the idea that dairy fat is a significant contributor to cardiovascular disease.*

            *In fact, intake of full-fat dairy foods was associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular mortality. It is not clear which pathway underlies this protective association and our observational study cannot confirm cause-effect relations. Further research should particularly consider the relevance of high and low-fat dairy products and their unique fatty-acid compositions.*

            Affiliations

            1. Cancer and Population Studies Group, Queensland Institute of Medical Research, Queensland, Australia – M Bonthuis – , M C B Hughes – , T I Ibiebele – , A C Green – & J C van der Pols 2. Division of Human Nutrition, Wageningen University and Research Centre, Wageningen, The Netherlands – M Bonthuis

            Competing interests

            The authors declare no conflict of interest.
            https://www.nature.com/articles/ejcn201045

            and this: Saturated fats, dairy foods and health: A curious paradox?
            Professor D. I. Givens Institute of Food, Nutrition and Health, University of Reading, Reading, UK

            https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/nbu.12283

            1. From the study limitations: “However, despite the plausible explanations for an inverse association between full-fat dairy intake and CVD mortality (as discussed above), it is important to take into account the large number of comparisons considered in this study and thus we cannot rule out the possibility that the protective association between full-fat dairy intake and cardiovascular mortality was due to chance. Also, participants in the highest intake group of full-fat dairy may have been at generally lower risk of CVD: compared with participants in the lowest and medium-level intake groups of full-fat dairy, participants in the highest intake group were younger, had a lower BMI, were less likely to have any medical condition and were more likely to leave school at an older age (all *P*<0.01), whereas physical activity levels did not vary by full-fat dairy intake groups (*P*=0.29). ”

              It would be unwise to base a decision to include dairy in one’s diet based on studies like this.

          2. Hi Tom,

            There will be a slow and begrudging realisation that the nutritional advice for the past 50 years (commencing with Ancel Keys) that saturated milk fat (and dairy more generally) is harmful …was always dead wrong. In other words, the ‘expert’ nutritional advice given was considerably more harmful that the targeted foodstuff. I believe the following summarises where the science is at:

            Summary

            1. Studies suggests saturated fat increases the risk of cardiovascular disease 2. The chemical structure of saturated fat in dairy foods differs from other saturated fats, and this alters is metabolism.
            3. Studies are increasingly demonstrating full-fat dairy is not harmful, and alongside fermented dairy products (yoghurt and cheese), may be protective against cardiovascular disease.
            4. Large intervention trials are required as confirmation

            https://thenewdaily.com.au/life/wellbeing/2018/10/12/full-fat-dairy-heart

            Oct 12, 2018

            *Could full fat dairy improve heart health?*

            Angela Tufvesson

            For years, leading health organisations have urged use to choose reduced-fat dairy foods – and not too many of them – to protect against heart disease.

            The accepted wisdom is that reduced fat dairy is lower in saturated fat and helps to maintain healthy cholesterol levels.

            But an emerging body of research is questioning the evidence linking saturated fat to cholesterol production and heart disease – the leading cause of death in Australia.

            A large study published in The Lancet this September adds weight to this body of evidence.

            It examined data from 130,000 people in 21 countries and found that people who had three servings of full fat dairy foods a day were better off when it came to heart disease risk than those who consumed less than 0.5 servings a day.

            Further research published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in July measured the blood levels of three fatty acids found in dairy products of almost 3000 adults aged 65 years and older.

            The 22-year study found no link between the fatty acids and a higher risk of heart disease or mortality, including fats found in full fat dairy foods.

            And an international expert consensus published in the same journal last year reports evidence “does not support a positive association between intake of dairy products and risk of cardiovascular disease”. It said fermented dairy products, such as cheese and yoghurt, were generally associated with improved health outcomes.

            These findings contrast with dietary guidelines that advise minimising consumption of full fat dairy products to help prevent heart disease.

            Beth Meertens, a dietitian at the Heart Foundation, said research linking full fat dairy foods with a reduced risk of heart disease was inconclusive.

            “We know there’s different types of saturated fat and they’re found in different types of foods, usually in varying combinations,” she said.

            “There is a bit of research into whether saturated fat from dairy has different effects … but there’s nothing conclusive to draw from it at this point in time.

            “Reduced fat dairy is linked to a lower risk of high blood pressure, which is an important risk factor for heart disease, and we don’t see that consistent relationship with full fat dairy.”

            She said dairy foods – whether full fat or reduced – did not increase the risk of heart disease.

            The Australian Dietary Guidelines recommend at least two serves of reduced fat milk, yoghurt and cheese every day. The Heart Foundation recommends aiming for two to four serves.

            “Our position is currently that reduced fat dairy products and unflavoured dairy products [without added sugar] are the healthier choice,” Ms Meertens said.

            “What we see, time and time again and quite consistently in big studies, is having less saturated fat and more unsaturated fat is more protective for heart health.”

            Manohar Garg, a professor of clinical and experimental nutrition at the University of Newcastle, said the chemical structure of saturated fat found in dairy foods differed to that found in other foods. This affected the way it was metabolised in the body and its role in disease risk.

            “Saturated fat is not a single nutrient – it’s not like vitamin A or vitamin C. We find saturated fat in a variety of foods, like coconut oil, dairy, chocolate, palm oil, eggs and meat,” Professor Garg said.

            “Dairy fat has short chain fatty acids compared to something like palm oil, which has long chain fatty acids.

            “The way the body metabolises short and medium chain fatty acids is vastly different from the long chain saturated fatty acids.”

            Professor Garg said the scientific community needed evidence that showed a direct, causal relationship between full fat dairy foods and a reduced risk of heart disease.

            The Lancet study, for example, was observational and therefore unable to show cause and effect. Until that evidence was found, it was unwise to update dietary guidelines, experts said.

            “We need to conduct a large intervention trial to show the effects of dairy foods on heart health,” he said.

            https://thenewdaily.com.au/life/wellbeing/2018/10/12/full-fat-dairy-heart

        4. Really interesting – thank you for the great research summary, Pete. Do you know of any similar studies on nut milks in tea, coffee, cocoa?

          1. Oh sorry, I see you spoke about almond milk below. I make my own and I seem to remember when i last calculated it that it came out as about 7-10% almond.

        1. Pete, your sole purpose of being here is to promote dairy… That might be true for some cheaper almond milks, but not all. I’ve had one brand that tasted so almond-y that despite it being delicious and some of the best tasting plant milk I ever had, it ruined a soup recipe because the strong almond flavor added too much of a a sweetness–and no, it didn’t have artificial flavor, it was organic with 3 ingredients. It’s also incredibly easy to make your own plant milks, that’s typically what I do… you don’t even need to strain it if you don’t mind the thickness. Hemp doesn’t need to be strained, almond milk will be gritty if it’s not but I don’t strain it when mixing in a recipe or eating with oats.

          1. S., I must say I enjoy almonds a great deal. But, nutritionally, I would never drink almond milk (or any milk alternative) as an alternative to cows milk. Even if it was 90% almonds. There are proteins and there are proteins, ditto vitamins, minerals, fats etc. But I am planning to make my own almond milk for the fun of it. I daresay it will be nutritionally superior to the commercial product. I also drink soy milk sometimes because I really enjoy the taste. Or I might mix it with cows milk to add flavour. However, it greatly concerns me that some attempt to feed infants with milk alternatives. Which is a very dangerous practice:

            ‘The court was told that Eliana Diskin was severely malnourished when she died at age five months after her loving parents fed her only on organically-grown brown rice milk with added vitamin supplements. – http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/05/13/1021002430788.html

            1. Surely at 5 months she should have been breastfed or given an infant formula made from cow’s milk OR soya. I don’t really think that is a relevant argument because babies needs are different to those of adults. Adult cows don’t require cows milk, they are vegan. And obviously vitamin supplementation isn’t going to correct fat and protein deficiency. Personally I think that story is a failing of postnatal care: that should never have gone on so long that it became fatal.

        1. I guess it is a volume argument here: if you have a coffee with a splash of nut milk the protein levels will be low, but a latte made from nut milk will likely have comparable protein concentration to an Americano with soya/cows milk….?

  1. I think anybody who has to add a lot of extras to their cup of joe doesn’t really like coffee at all. Be brave; drink it BLACK!

    1. Nonsense….why bravery when cowardice will suffice?

      I drink about the most added to coffee one may possibly drink….as base, hibiscus tea, with a paper filter, added flax or nut milk, and sweetened with erytheriol.

        1. Sure you laugh now…wait to the NIH published study(at least six are now ongoing, my imagination has told me so) on the proven affects of coffee with hibiscus tea as base benefit.
          We will see who is laughing then ;)
          It will be I not thy, oh brave one.

            1. Only those found in the barren reaches of the heart…to whit that song reminded me distinctly(on a lighter note) of one Bill Cosby must now be singing to his wife Camille.

                1. Nah, not his willy his mind. Peoples that enjoy that sort of thing are invariably necrophiliacs, which is not a thing of willy but mind, a deviance.
                  It really does exist. Peoples like that tend to the funeral business as pedophiles tend to some thing to do with care of children often.
                  The guy was rich well liked humerous and charismatic, or basically he had a shot at about thousands upon thousands of woman a celebrity there are groupies who follow celebs around..but the drug and then rape..why that then? Clearly the guy was a necrophiliac. He liked a dead like thing that did not move a bit. Even groupies want to remember a thing. A compulsion really like pedophilia, they in the main cannot change or become normal. A good thing he was put away likely it would continue. And how to get a woman to do that…it is impossible ladies of the night will not allow it…so he had to do it illegally. Only way.

                  1. Agree. We know, of course, that the willy IS ruled by the mind….be it totally corrupt (as in his case) or otherwise.

                    Yeah, it’s too bad what can happen to some people. :-( (Slowly, the “swamp” is being drained, however.)

    2. that’s just it though, I drink it dark, plain, black, but dark. So there are little to no benefits when drinking dark plain black coffee?

      1. m, I don’t think that is the case. They’re talking about 1 particular antioxidant being reduced from dark roasting, but every single antioxidant in coffee. Worst case scenario you’d be getting 10% of the antioxidant referred to. I posted a link somewhere below which went through a list of antioxidants found in coffee and while it was mentioned that dark roasting can destroy some antioxidant content, it also mentions benefits of the roasting for certain compounds. It’s just a blog so I can’t say how accurate all the info is but they do give a couple references. I kind of read it in a hurry.

    3. Sadly much of the country never had coffee that did not come from a can so I can easily see why they insist on doctoring it up. Had those people ever had a cup of fresh roasted kona or blue mountain coffee their entire coffee worlds would change.

  2. This makes me wonder. Aside from the coffee and milk, are there other situations where the blocking of a nutrient plays an important role? For example, what happens if I make a delicious smoothie with berries, banana, spinach, flaxseed and some, I don´t know, soymilk. Is there a possiblity that somehow, due to the varied combination of ingredients, some important nutrients get blocked or absorbed?

    1. I asked a similar question on another thread and someone provided a Dr Greger video on the effects of combinations of things in a smoothie potentiating, not decreasing antioxidant affect.

      Some select items consumed do prevent the assimilation of minerals, beans most commonly. But probably the milks are to diluted to have much effect or the fiber portion, usually removed, is what has the cause. As Dr Greger mentions in his notes.

    2. I’m anxious to know this as well, but the findings that soy creates REVERSIBLE blocking at least in coffee, was extremely comforting to me! My faith in plants is always justified down the line…

        1. Except for the studies that show non-drinkers have a higher rate of mortality than moderate and heavy drinkers.

          On a site like this, i raise that point standing on a tiny rock — no, i dont have any sources, and yes, there are hundreds of other factors involved…

          1. Aren’t you thinking about alcohol? In that case, the results are confounded by the fact that many non-drinkers had to give up booze for health reasons for example because they have liver disease, or because they have to take medications which have dangerous iteractions with alcohol.

    3. Hi, William! You raise an important question. Phytochemistry and the interactions between plant nutrients and our own biochemistry is very complicated stuff! It is possible that some ingredients may include substances that interfere with the absorption of nutrients from other ingredients. It is also possible, as Mostly vegan ron in New Mexico points out, that the opposite is true in some cases. As Dr. Greger says, we don’t know until we put it to the test.
      You can access everything on this site about smoothies here: https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/smoothies/
      You might also be interested in this video: https://nutritionfacts.org/video/food-synergy/
      I hope that helps!

  3. Exellent. I wasn’t going to trow away my stash of soymilk. Not that is in my coffee anyway.

    The amount of polyphenols in coffee is pretty crazy and it easily dwarfs those found in stuff like olive oil and red wine.

    Good to know that light and medium roasts is where the magic happens.

    1. Netogate, not good to know, I like dark :( But I posted a link below (nothing brilliant, it wasn’t pubmed or Harvard or anything, just a blog) talking about some of the different antioxidants found in coffee and it did talk about decreasing in roasting but some things actually increase. Hopefully that’s true because when I do enjoy coffee, I tend to favor the darker roasts. But I guess it’s worth testing out the lighter ones in the future.

  4. I used to add dairy products to my coffee — till the time those products at work went “off,” and a co-worker extolled the flavor of fresh-brewed plain coffee! So I tried it — and he was right!

    I’ve drunk my coffee black ever since — till this past summer when I tried an iced ginger coffee in a little cafe. I liked that so much I started making it at home, and I’ve switched to hot ginger coffee as we move into fall. Two ingredients: ground coffee beans and ginger (which I add directly to the brewed coffee, or brew it first, then add it to a coffee concentrate made with my AeroPress coffee maker).

    1. Dr. J., are you talking about grated ginger or a little ginger powder?

      I’ve been drinking mine just plain black for eons. I take my tea black too (nothing added).

      1. But don’t we already know that it’s not simply protein considering the adzuki and raspberry findings actually working synergistically to create an even greater antioxidant effect than either would alone?

    1. He says in the Dr’s notes:

      “I can imagine folks wondering about other milks. Almond, rice, and coconut-based milks have so little protein that I doubt there’d be a blocking effect, but they’ve never been tested directly to my knowledge.”

  5. I gather the acronym for chlorogenic acid, discussed in this video, is CGA which I see in some points of video and elsewhere I see use of CQA. Is this latter acronym also referring to chlorogenic acid or some variation of it or a typo in the study excerpts that were being referenced?

    1. Hi I’m a RN health support volunteer. I believe CGA is Chlorogenic acids CQA is caffeoylquinic acid, both of which are found in coffee.

      NurseKelly

  6. Another high evidence density and useful research summary. Medium or lighter roast black coffee, no dairy and soy is fine. I’ve started making cold brew coffee and then just heat when I want it hot. Manufacturer of cold brew equipment claims this eliminates most the detrimental acids. Hoping this also eliminates cafretrol esters so as to mitigate cholesterol spikes. Has this intuitive leap of cafretrol reduction using cold brew technique been put to the test? PS.-Taste is better (subjective, I know) with cold brew.

  7. I seem to recall from a previous video that there was a good reason to use a paper filter when brewing coffee… can’t remember the specifics. So one additional question might be: do filters suppress the coffee phytonutrient advantage too?

    Just wondering.
    .

    1. Hello Dr. Cobalt,

      The video you are referring to discussed the cholesterol raising effects of coffee and how that can be reduced by using a paper filter since you filter out cafestol.
      As for your question, I reviewed some of the studies that were used for this video and found that ferric reducing ability (antioxidant capacity) was GREATER in filtered coffee than in Espresso or Italian coffee. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22766993

      Cholesterol and coffee video: https://nutritionfacts.org/video/does-coffee-affect-cholesterol/

      I hope you find this information useful,
      Matt

      1. Vielen Dank, Matt. I should probably review all of the coffee videos to get the big picture again. Seems there are a lot of nuances to keep track of with this little bean. =]

        dc

    1. I rarely cite the FDA but on this I think they are reasonable, a quote on the issue in California…..”It’s true acrylamide is found in many foods that are baked, roasted, or fried as a trace byproduct, including coffee. And it’s true that in high enough doses, acrylamide might be carcinogenic, at least based on animal studies. But, as even the World Health Organization has found, there’s no good evidence coffee itself can cause cancer. And there isn’t any good evidence we even get enough acrylamide from our food or coffee for it to be a health risk.
      On Wednesday, FDA chief Scott Gottlieb issued a statement, laying out these same facts. He also issued a warning of what might happen if California complied with the court decision.”

      A judges decision apparently sparked the controversy and its application to prop 65.
      If WHO concurs with the FDA, probably their is some sound substance to the opinion. WHO tends to be more abstract from corporate influence. The FDA, maybe not.

    2. Paul, Dr. Greger has a video on coffee and what I assume you’re referring to, AGE’s in roasted coffee, the amount of AGE’s in roasted coffee are so tiny that they’re just insignificant. Coffee is not considered a carcinogen by anyone qualified to classify it as such, California is ridiculous.

      1. Just for the record, I’m sure I’ll be accused by someone of being addicted to coffee, but I actually drink and prefer tea, I enjoy coffee on rare occasion.

    3. I remember looking up coffee on the Advanced Glycation Endproducts food list . Whereas oils, nuts, grilled meats etc were in the thousands AGE’s per serving, coffee came in at about 6. We’re good.

      1. But Deb, that was in a petri dish so it can’t be certain that the same would go for actual ingestion. Maybe if ingested with tea the same thing would occur as show to do with coffee, the reversal of the binding during digestion.

  8. I don’t think it is responsible to promote the myth of coffee as a beneficial drug. I get that even vegans are complicit, because everyone is ridiculously addicted to caffeine and that probably includes everyone that worked on this article. But caffeine is a bane of our modern world. Even children are addicted to caffeine. ADHD and many other personality disorders are blamed on sugar, but caffeine is most likely the main culprit.

    It’s a bit like the whole “healthy red wine” insanity. Do you know what is healthy? grapes. Do you know what is not? any amount of alcohol. Nope. not even a little bit.

    I am not claiming that every adult, should stop drinking alcohol or coffee entirely, but doctors, especially those who claim to know about nurition, should not be telling people to consume dangerous drugs. Moderation is fine, but when doctors tell you that dangerous drugs are okay. That’s a problem. Do you remember the smoking doctors from just a few decades ago? Now it’s the redbull swilling doctors. how different is that?

    Do you know how much caffeine your body needs? 0. Like mercury, nicotine or alcohol. Yoyr body does not “need” any coffee or caffeinated tea at all. Ever.

    from wikipedia: “Chlorogenic acid and the related compounds cryptochlorogenic acid, and neochlorogenic acid have been found in the leaves of Hibiscus sabdariffa.[10] Isomers of chlorogenic acid are found in potatoes.[11] Chlorogenic acid is present in the flesh of eggplants,[12] peaches,[13] and prunes.[14]”

    So why not give people responsible medical advice and suggest that they eat peaches eggplants and prunes for all the benefits if coffee without any of the nasty addictive, nerve damaging, hyperactivity causing side effects of caffeine? Caffeine free Hibiscus tea perhaps?

    1. Peoples have been drinking things with caffeine in them probably for thousands upon thousands of years. In even Buddhist lore I may find reference to teas being acceptable for meditators as it helps to keep us alert. To point to the fact It goes back that far. Even longer really, since humans have been cultivating things probably.
      IN asia it was tea. In south America mate. Here now coffee and sports drinks, and even really bad things like coke soda.

      Hyperactivity….what point to the fairly recent incidence of ADD to coffee drinking….where was it a couple of hundred years ago with tea…. the brits perhaps….not really.
      I questioned my addiction by staying away from all caffeine for several years. I went back not as I am addicted, but as I function better and am more awake. A person does not like it, do not drink it. To claim all others are addicted….I say firmly not, we just like the effects. We do not mold our lives around it like addicts do. Nor does it have affects to us like hyperactivity. Want to produce that in kids…feed them a bowl of ice cream. Always they will get the sugar rush and crash a hour or so later.
      And typically we do not give coffee to kids. Coke Pepsi and such….it should be outlawed on a general basis not just caffeine.

      1. Here from a general source is the Buddhist tea story..
        ” When Buddhism first spread out of India, it was brought by the Indian sage Bodhidharma. One of the great feats of meditation that Bodhidharma achieved was meditating while gazing at a wall for nine years. There is a story that he fell asleep seven years into his nine-year meditation, and when he awoke, he was so disgusted with himself that he cut off his own eyelids for betraying him, flinging them to the ground. When they hit the ground, they sprouted the first tea plants, which are thought to be a gift to Buddhist practitioners to encourage wakefulness. ”

        ADD back then….not reported. We are talking 2000 plus years ago.

        1. Yes. Meat-eating has been around for just as long. ditto opium!

          the “it has been done for so long” argument is bogus. Plus what do budhist monks have to do with health? They are monks, bit doctors

          1. Buddhist monks on a general basis are known to be a long lived peoples in virtually every culture they inhabit. Nothing suggests in a historical fashion those taking some form of caffeine lived shorter than those who did not. If you have such study or anthropological notation please provide it.
            And equating coffee drinking to opium….do you realize what you are saying?

            That about says your position clearly.

            1. Can we produce conclusive proof opium users live shorter…yes I think we can.
              Meat eaters…not as conclusively but probably/possibly yes.
              Coffee drinkers……no. For every or any study showing less can be produced one showing more.

    2. Uh, myth??? I think you are confused… he does give responsible medical advice, that is what this website is all about. He isn’t sharing his opinion or creating the studies, he just reports on them, pro or con, for our edification. Maybe you are an ascetic, but most people aren’t, there is a range of things people enjoy that they don’t need. Knowing the best science, people can modify their behaviors based on risk/benefit ratio. He isn’t telling you to drink coffee, he is stating the latest science about it.

    3. Hibiscus tea is made from the petals of the flower, but the chlorogenic acids are found in the leaves of an African species of the plant, which are not used in making the tea. The amount of chologenic acid in the other foods you mentioned may be too low to have much effect. See my comments below about its dangers. I completely agree with your other comments about caffeine and alcohol. If we’re going to try to eat healthy, its best to go all the way.

      1. Who says ….” If we’re going to try to eat healthy, its best to go all the way.”
        Here is a brief history of coffee in the US from a published source..
        “Coffee plants reached the New World during the early 18th century, though the drink wasn’t really popular in America until the Boston Tea Party of 1773, when making the switch from tea to coffee became something of a patriotic duty. The Civil War and other conflicts that followed also helped to increase coffee consumption, as soldiers relied on the caffeine for a boost of energy. It may have started a bit later here, but Americans love coffee just as much as the rest of the world. Teddy Roosevelt himself is counted among America’s great coffee drinkers due to his rumored consumption of a gallon of coffee daily! Roosevelt is also said to have coined Maxwell House’s famous “Good to the Last Drop” slogan after being served the coffee at Andrew Jackson’s historical home, the Hermitage, in Tennessee.
        By the late 1800s, coffee had become a worldwide commodity, and entrepreneurs began looking for new ways to profit from the popular beverage. In 1864, John and Charles Arbuckle, brothers from Pittsburgh, purchased Jabez Burns’ newly invented self-emptying coffee bean roaster. The Arbuckle brothers began selling pre-roasted coffee in paper bags by the pound. They named their coffee “Ariosa,” and found great success selling it to the cowboys of the American West. It wasn’t long before James Folger followed suit and began selling coffee to the gold miners of California. This blazed the trail for several other big name coffee producers, including Maxwell House and Hills Brothers.”

        Now as to heart disease the prelevence of that in American society prior to say 1920 or so……
        If one has a existant condition or is recovering from one any past history, really I can see this as valid…” If we’re going to try to eat healthy, its best to go all the way.”
        For the rest of us probably moderation suffices. The constraints of trying to live up to possibly unnecessary and very difficult dietary standards may themselves be a source of stress that has negative health implications.

    4. Hibiscus tea is made from the petals of the flower, but the chlorogenic acids are found in the leaves of an African species of the plant, which are not used in making the tea. The amount of chologenic acid in the other foods you mentioned may be too low to have much effect. See my comments below about its dangers. I completely agree with your other comments about caffeine and alcohol. If we’re going to try to eat healthy, its best to go all the way.

    5. Antoine, I read the first sentence or two of your post and you sound like a nut case and one of the those anti “stimulant” people who think chocolate, tea, etc. are drugs… This is science, not idealism.

      1. There are many plant created substances that are adverse to insects and other forms of life but have no negative affect on humans and may actually be beneficial.

        The hot element of chili comes to mind. Which bugs are adverse, as it does indeed contain acids, which seemingly at their minute scale may kill them if ingested, but humans may find health benefit from. But there are others as well.

        1. Historically here in NM powdered chili was commonly spread around entranceways to keep ants away. The plants evolved to do what with the hot element…stop bugs from eating them not humans.

          Animal and bug studies on fatal outcome often do not translate to humans. We cannot make such gross assumptive premesis.

          1. No they provide beneficial affect cited in this one video….https://nutritionfacts.org/video/are-chili-peppers-good-for-you/
            and there are several more attesting to the same affect. benefit.

            It is simply not a carryover necessarily. What is toxic to insects may not be to us and visa a versa.
            Flies live and thrive on decaying rotten food and sewerage. We eat those things and die. So effectively sewerage is human pesticide if one considers humans pests. Spray the stuff around from a large plane on a city and many would die and all would leave that place…the flies would love it.

      2. Julot, by that logic we should all be avoiding broccoli, especially broccoli sprouts, because the sulforaphane is produced by the plant to keep predators away and so could also technically be considered a natural pesticide and lo… it’s one of the healthiest things we can put in our bodies. Your theory sounds like an interesting idea but that’s all it is. Similar to the thinking that fire destroys, therefore all cooked food is destroyed.

    6. Antoine,

      Dr. Greger has discussed the French Paradox and has given the negative effects of alcohol and soda and smoking. Most of what you have said are things he has been on the front lines about.

      His information is based on studies and you are not giving studies proving your position. You are giving opinions.

      You are giving things like Red Bull, which Dr. Greger is not promoting at all, in fact, he has said that 12 highly caffeinated energy drinks within a few hours could be lethal.

      You are recommending Hibiscus tea, which Dr. Greger already has said that he started drinking because of the studies and his endorsement of that is already out there.

      The thing is Coffee, Tea and Chocolate would be the first three things which come to mind when I think “caffeine” and even those of us who were heavy coffee drinkers didn’t necessarily go too far over the six cups of coffee per day, which the mortality studies are based on: “in the largest study ever conducted on diet and health put that question to the test, examining the association between coffee drinking and subsequent mortality among hundreds of thousands of older men and women in the United States. Coffee drinkers won, though the effect was modest. 10 to 15% lower risk of death for those drinking six or more cups a day, specifically due to lower risk of dying from heart disease, respiratory disease, stroke, injuries and accidents, diabetes, and infections.”

      He is on the record of suggesting to drink less than 4 cups per day for adults under 55 and has a video of who shouldn’t drink coffee.

      “But, if you put all the studies together, the bottom line is that coffee consumption is associated with no change or a small reduction in mortality starting around one or two cups a day, for both men and women.”

      The thing is that people do drink caffeinated teas and eat dark chocolate, and there are benefits to those things for people who don’t like hibiscus and many people don’t like hibiscus.

      And, no, I am not pro caffeine. I am a pragmatist.

      People eating the SAD lived longer drinking coffee. That is already something I can celebrate if my SAD friends and family will do it. Unfortunately, they use milk or cream, but my sister-in-law uses NonDairy Creamer at the holidays. Whatever NonDairy Creamer is made of.

      1. Yes, long rambling comment, but the whole point is that you are lecturing Dr. Greger to promote the things he already is promoting based on studies.

        It is just that you don’t like the coffee studies.

        1. S posted a link on Coffee Science and it shared the statistics:

          The average person drinks 1.6 cups of coffee per day.

          There are 150+ million avid coffee drinkers and they average 3.1 cups of coffee per day.

          They put the health risks at: Drinking more than 8 cups of coffee per day can lead to increased levels of bad cholesterol in the blood, result in excessive weight gain and diabetes.

          But the health risks for people under 55 who drink 6 or more cups per day is higher, so highly addictive personalities probably should stay away, but having met quite a few people with highly addictive personalities in my life, they are likely to drink alcohol, soda or energy drinks instead.

          1. I could go to my own family.

            They all only drink soda or coffee or tea or iced tea. No water. No herbal tea.

            So, the question, in my mind, would be

            Soda? They drank Classic Coke or Diet Pepsi or Mountain Dew or Root Beer. Are any of those better than the others?
            That would be about 2 liters per day even now for my brothers.

            I used to drink that much of it when I drank soda.

            Coffee? I did seriously big cups of it, so I probably did drink 6 or 7 cups per day when I was in college, but if you kicked me off of it, I would have gone back to Double Gulp sodas. Either one would last me most of the day, but if it was hot, I could have 2 Double Gulps, so it is already back to 2 liters of soda per day.

            Tea? When I lived in California, I drank tea and I drink tea all day now. I don’t need milk or sweetener when I drink tea, but I do have soy milk so it is not such a good trade-off because soy milk kills the value of the tea, but dark roast kills the value of the coffee and I enjoy socializing with the sweet people at Starbucks.

            Seltzer water was something I did do for a few years, but it was hard to find bottles of seltzer water all Summer long because people buy so much of it and I didn’t like the Soda Stream version.

            So now, I drink one bottled water and tea the rest of the time. Bottled because I hate the taste of our tap water. I did try Pur and Zero Water and other brands filters, but I was not happy with the taste and I psychologically end up not drinking water ever unless it is bottled so I buy the ones where they add the minerals for me.

            Yes, I do all sorts of mental acrobatics to make my decisions. I envy Dr. Greger who looks at a study and switches to hibiscus and is happy with it. I have to totally reprogram my brain and trick myself into doing it. The Family Circus used to have the strips where they follow the little boy all around and that is my brain and people try to take away all of the loops but then I end up back on soda or something.

            1. Dr. Greger switching with the studies is something he has programmed into his mind.

              I don’t have that.

              I have “If I don’t eat fruit, I start eating sugar.” as what I know about myself and my friends who are Keto say, “But fruit and carbs ARE sugar” and I say, “No, you don’t understand, if I don’t eat fruit, I start eating ice cream or chocolate instead of meals and then I end up switching to the chocolate meals for nutrition and then I have three more jumps to get back to fruit.”

  9. I stay away from coffee and black tea because the chlorogenic acids in them increases homocystine and the risk of heart disease according to this study from the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition: https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/73/3/532/4737354 and my homocysteine is already marginally high. I’m also wondering if green tea might do the same. What about prunes, peaches or eggplant since they also contain some chlorogenic acid? I’d like to suggest that Dr. Greger and his staff consider doing a video on homocystine and how to lower it and its risks for heart disease. I imagine that there are plenty of other foods high in antioxidants that don’t have this downside.

    1. That 2001 study simply does not state that……”.increases homocystine and the risk of heart disease according to this study”……. It states this…. “Chlorogenic acid, a compound in coffee, and black tea raise total homocysteine concentrations in plasma. Chlorogenic acid could be partly responsible for the higher homocysteine concentrations observed in coffee drinkers. Whether these effects on homocysteine influence cardiovascular disease risk remains to be established.”

      I am not saying other study does not exist on this related issue but what you provided is not that.

    2. Interesting, Ron. I drink coffee for the chlorogenic acid as it is supposed to lower uric acid levels, an issue for me. My homocysteine is normal but not as low as I would like.

      How’s your vitamin B6, vitamin B12, and folic acid? Deficiencies of those are associated with elevated homocysteine, but I’m guessing you already know that.

      1. Interesting. I’m on a 100% WFP diet and supplement B12. My B12 level is actually over the high end of the “normal” range. Thankfully, my homocysteine is a normal 8.1, far lower than what the studies reported for vegans.

    3. As the authors of the study point out “A high plasma homocysteine concentration is a predictor of risk of cardiovascular disease (1, 2, 18). However, it is still unclear whether a high homocysteine concentration is causally related to cardiovascular disease or is merely an indicator of another process that causes cardiovascular disease.” It is not clear that the raised homocysteine from coffee or tea drinking would increase the risk of CVD. Also it seemed to me they provided the participants quite large amounts of chlorogenic acid, far more than most people would get unless overdoing it.

    4. I have the homozygous MTHFR genetic polymorphism (present in about 9% of European stock) which causes me to metabolize homocysteine at about 10% of the normal rate. High homocysteine is associated with MANY health problems including depression, dementia, and of course CV disease.

      Even filtered coffee and black tea raise homocysteine. But how about green tea?

      “It is reported that the drinking green tea is inversely associated with serum homocysteine level in elderly.” https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01594086

  10. I normally don’t pay attention to websites like these (posted below), but I did a quick and extremely half-assed search to see what other kind of antioxidants are in coffee. According to this, some positives are actually formed during the roasting process, they reference some studies but I’m not sure how good the studies are. I only read the list of antioxidants, not the full piece. Found it somewhat interesting, figured I’d share in case anyone else does or knows more about it and can correct or confirm any given info http://www.coffeescience.org/6-antioxidants-in-coffee/

  11. Yes, yes, yes! I have been waiting on this video. I have been a soy milk drinker for a bit and like my black tea and coffee with soy milk. It’s just better tasting. I don’t see how you folks can drink it with out. Why deny yourself especially now that we have this video.

    1. Never liked coffee with any type of milk, love the taste of black coffee. I freshly grind the whole bean, tastes so much better than the pre-ground stuff.

  12. Last night, I was pondering the whole Keto kills versus causes 35% more Cancer thing and I looked up the Keto Pet Sanctuary, which healed a dog of Hemangiosarcoma and came to their diet and this time I read the details and they do 85 to 90% fat (Coconut oil or Heavy Cream or Olive Oil) 5 to 10% animal product and 5% vegetables no grain.

    So the dog is basically eating oil or heavy cream and they are keeping the animal products down where the studies say that the Cancer shuts off and are keeping the glucose low.

    I needed to look it up because my friends with Cancer are all closer to Keto but none of them are going to drink coconut oil or olive oil as 90% of their calories. Heavy Cream….. maybe….. if they had to.

    1. Anyway, they succeeded by bringing the animal protein down to between 5% and 10% (They do a transition, so the animals with cancer start at 10% animal product and move to 5%, I think.) Animals without Cancer might go slightly higher because there was a third category, which they said not to do if the animals have Cancer.

      I say it because there were WFPB Vegans who had chosen Keto for their pets but their pets died and I can guarantee that they didn’t do this version of Keto and this version works for animals. It probably would increase the heart attack and stroke rate for dogs after a while, but it did get rid of 6 tumors in the dog with the type of Cancer my dog has.

  13. I think with that high level of fat being what they think it takes to heal dogs with Cancer, that leaves the door open for a WFPB study for dogs.

    The concept of my dog drinking a carton of heavy cream and getting 100 calories of meat and 100 calories of low glycemic veggies versus the process I have been doing.

    The sites say that dogs don’t get blocked arteries but they do get insulin and have strokes and if I mess up the calories I would actually increase the spread of Cancer because of the IGF.

    I heard Dr Lisle say that he feeds his cat vegan and I know that it would make supplementation mandatory, but all of the people around me are talking about their cats having Diabetes and Cancer, too.

    Wouldn’t the high rate of those conditions leave the door open for supplemented WFPB if the animals would eat it?

    I think so.

    I am not putting down Keto Pet Sanctuary. They made 6 tumors go away basically feeding a dog oil and it worked.

    I have real friends with real Cancer and if they could get rid of it in 3 months drinking a carton of heavy cream every day or coconut oil in their coffee which they do with Keto anyway, I would be happy if it works.

    I would just be terrified that they would die of a heart attack before the Cancer would have taken them.

  14. Not all dogs or cats would eat high enough fat and their point is that Cancer can’t utilize fat. That is why they do it.

    There might be some crazy way to jump back and forth between Keto and WFPB for people who just can’t give meat up.

    I have someone who is doing that when she starts craving sweets, starches and carbs she goes low fat and when she craves meat she goes low carb and does coconut oil.

    It is fascinating watching her. As if the diet wars created by my talking too much have caused a ping pong game in her mind but if she can go WFPB for a few weeks between high fat it might be better than nothing

    1. They aren’t just doing Keto. They are doing Cancer meds and hyperbaric oxygen and they said that the survival is better for dogs who lose weight and get lower blood sugar and high carb eaters have lower blood sugar than low carb. If that is the mechanism WFPB still should be better.

      1. Tom, What do you consider a”high fat” diet? Also, when you say “high fat”, I assume you mean high saturated fat. Is that right? I don’t think there is any evidence that a 100% WFP diet with, say, 25 or perhaps even 30 % of calories from fat obtained almost exclusively from nuts, seeds, avocado, raises cholesterol or risk of heart disease (I take this from Fr Fuhrman).
        I eat such a diet and my TC was 137 at last measurement (LDL 83, TRI 73, VLDL 14), so I believe Fuhrman on this point. Since you are so well read and thoughtful, I’d appreciate knowing your opinion.

        1. Hi Gengogakusha

          All diets contain fat. Even rice, potatoes and fruit contain some.

          That said, the WHO recommends that people obtain a minimum of 15% of total calories from fat. So, I would class anything under 15% as a low fat diet. The WHO study also estimated that the upper limit for total calories should be 30-35%, so anything over 30-35% would constitute a high fat diet.
          http://foris.fao.org/preview/25553-0ece4cb94ac52f9a25af77ca5cfba7a8c.pdf

          That said, curret US thinking is that the total amount of fat in the diet is not relevant to health outcomes but what is important is the type of fat – with, broadly speaking, trans fats and saturated fats being regarded as unhealthful while polyunsaturated and monounstaurated fats are regarded as healthful.

          I have my doubts about this personally but have no qualifications or experise in this area. I am just aware that some observational studies show that ‘swapping’ healthful carbohydrates for various fats appears to show benefits eg the Harvard study I have mentioned multiple times before …. eg

          ‘ When dairy fat was replaced with the same number of calories from vegetable fat or polyunsaturated fat, the risk of cardiovascular disease dropped by 10% and 24%, respectively. Furthermore, replacing the same number of calories from dairy fat with healthful carbohydrates from whole grains was associated with a 28% lower risk of cardiovascular disease.’
          https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2016/10/25/dairy-fat-cardiovascular-disease-risk/

          Also, Esselstyn emphasises low fat diets eliminating all oils, nuts and avocados while mouse studies suggest that keeping calories from fat relatively low (under 20%) promotes longevity. Finally, of course, the traditional Okinawan diet associated with healthy longevity and large numbers of centenarians provided only 6% of total calories from fat.

          So, yes, I agree that there is no solid evidence suggesting that your diet is in any way unhealthy. On the other hand, I don’t think that we have enough evidence to conclude that either Fuhrman’s approach, Esselstyn’s approach or McDougall’s starch-based approach is better for most people.

          1. He Who is Finger-Challenged said:

            “On the other hand, I don’t think that we have enough evidence to conclude that either Fuhrman’s approach, Esselstyn’s approach or McDougall’s starch-based approach is better for most people.”
            – – – – – –

            Amen to that.

          2. Thanks for the reply, which is consistent with my own conclusions. It is frustratingly difficult to get clarity on this issue. I find the Okinawan case a bit mysterious because the amount of fat is so astonishingly low, but it certainly does provide a case that a very low fat diet can be very healthful. (I would note though that although low in fat, the fat obtained was low in unsaturated fat and relatively high in omega 3 fatty acids from fish and free-range animals.) It seems to me the 15-20% range is a reasonable general target for those without heart disease and who have no problems with weight (even Esselstyn says some nuts/seeds are ok if one is not trying to reverse heart disease).

            Although not specifically addressing the issue of fat as % of diet, Fuhrman makes a related point in his book The End of Heart Disease: the longest lived Adventists were those who regularly ate nuts/seeds. Relatedly, I came across the following recent Adventist study overview supporting the advisability of eating nuts/seeds regularly: https://publichealth.llu.edu/adventist-health-studies/findings/findings-past-studies/adventist-health-study-findings-nuts

              1. For the purposes of balance, here is the competing theory (from 2014) – which comes to the complete opposite conclusion:

                ‘Swapping saturated fat and carbohydrates for linoleic acid – the main polyunsaturated fat found in vegetable oil, nuts, and seeds – lowers risk of coronary heart disease, according to a new study by Harvard School of Public Health researchers’.

                However, the authors (Farvid et al) also raise some warning flags, which appear glossed over:

                1. ‘*Concerns have been raised about higher linoleic acid consumption being harmful for heart health because of potential pro-inflammatory and thrombogenic properties. Linoleic acid can be elongated to arachidonic acid and subsequently synthesized to a variety of pro-inflammatory eicosanoids, which may increase CHD risk. But this speculation is not supported by randomized controlled feeding studies, in which dietary intake of linoleic acid was not found to increase plasma levels of arachidonic acid or inflammatory markers. On the contrary, some studies have found anti-inflammatory effects of diets higher in linoleic acid compared to those higher in saturated fat’.*

                2. ‘*Although olive oil contains little linoleic acid, many studies have shown health benefits of **Mediterranean diets** rich in olive oil’. *

                The authors add:

                *‘If saturated fat is replaced by **carbohydrates** (typically refined carbohydrates), there will be no benefit on heart disease. This is why many epidemiologic studies have failed to observe a significant association between saturated fat and risk of CHD as carbohydrates were typically used as a comparator. However, if saturated fat is replaced by polyunsaturated fat, then there is a clear benefit for heart disease prevention.*

                https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2014/11/05/dietary-linoleic-acid-and-risk-of-coronary-heart-disease/

                Clearly, both sides of the argument cannot be right. Personally, I am more persuaded by the multiple studies demonstrating that:

                1. Small, dense LDL particles are much more likely to become *oxidised *and lodged in arteries 2. Saturated fats shift LDL cholesterol from small, dense LDL to large LDL.
                By so doing, saturated fats diminish heart disease risk.
                3. Saturated fats raise HDL, and thereby further diminish heart disease risk.
                4. The heart protective effect of low (not high) linoleic oils, such as olive oil. This appears inconsistent with the study findings.
                5. Subsequent research from 2017 (Hamley, Deakin University) which found no such link, and errors in the study methodology:

                *‘Available evidence from adequately controlled randomised controlled trials suggest replacing SFA with mostly n-6 PUFA is unlikely to reduce CHD events, CHD mortality or total mortality. The suggestion of benefits reported in earlier meta-analyses is due to the inclusion of inadequately controlled trials. These findings have implications for current dietary recommendations’. *

                https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28526025

                1. Pete – Your point about LA vs ALA although no doubt controversial, is well-taken (I’ve read this before). It made me realize that my comment was not specific enough – I meant DHA/EPA, not ALA. Thanks for making me realize this. I fall into the vegan WFP diet group that believes supplementing with algal DHA/EPA is wise. If one does not get sufficient DHA/EPA through food or diet, then making sure there is sufficient ALA vs LA in the diet would seem to be even more important since it’s the only (indirect) source of DHA/EPA, and many people, especially men, are poor converters (I recognize there is evidence that conversion rates improve for vegans but am not sure if it’s enough to fully compensate).

                  I don’t buy your point:
                  “2. Saturated fats shift LDL cholesterol from small, dense LDL to large LDL. By so doing, saturated fats diminish heart disease risk.

                  As Dr. Greger and many others have discussed, large LDL may be associated with less risk of CVD than than small, dense LDL, but that does not make them desirable.

                  Also your conclusion in you point
                  “3. Saturated fats raise HDL, and thereby further diminish heart disease risk.”

                  is not certain. If one’s cholesterol is low enough, it is arguably irrelevant if one’s HDL is “somewhat low” (i.e. somewhat below 40 for a male) since there is not much cholesterol to transport back to the liver. It is not clear how protective HDL actually is.
                  Cf.
                  http://www.drmirkin.com/heart/hdl-cholesterol-a-new-understanding.html
                  “For a long time, doctors have questioned the value of using HDL levels to predict heart attacks. A review of 15 studies shows that the risk for heart attacks does not vary directly with the concentration of HDL in your bloodstream (Lipids in Health and Disease, November 14, 2017).”

                  I admit to being biased as I am a committed “ethical vegan”, but your arguments that milk/dairy are health-promoting for people who have plenty to eat and can buy pretty much whatever food they want seem quite weak. Tom and Ron have addressed many of your claims so I won’t bother to get into that in detail. But here is one 2017 study I think has not been discussed indicating drinking milk is inadvisable, at least in significant amounts (several cups per day).

                  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28184428
                  “Compared with low consumption of milk (<1 glass/day) and high consumption of fruits/vegetables (≥5 servings/day), time-updated information revealed an adjusted hazard ratio for death of 2.79 (95% confidence interval (CI): 2.42, 3.21) in women who consumed ≥3 glasses of milk/day and <1 serving/day of fruit/vegetables and a hazard ratio of 1.60 (95% CI: 1.40, 1.82) in women who consumed the same amount of milk but ≥5 servings/day of fruits/vegetables. The same comparisons in men, based on a single food frequency questionnaire, displayed hazard ratios of 1.31 (95% CI: 1.14, 1.51) and 1.07 (95% CI: 0.97, 1.18), respectively. Total antioxidant consumption showed similar patterns as fruit/vegetable intakes. Dietary antioxidant intake, especially in women, seems to modify the elevated death rate associated with high milk consumption."

                  In other words, drinking milk is health-damaging although high vegetable/fruit consumption can partially compensate. This begs the question – why not just skip the milk and thereby further improve one's diet?

                  1. Thanks gengogakusha for the interesting comments. I dont have the time to answer them in detail at present, but just a few observations

                    1. In the main, my descendants are also strict vegetarian. I completely agree with their decision. However, they also include dairy in their diet, which I also agree with.

                    2. I fully understand why people are opposed to animal products. In many respects the processing is quite horrifying, albeit less so in most dairyfarming. But I am also a realist. When it comes to feeding (an overpopulated) world, dairy is very valuable.

                    3. A whole heap of research demonstrates that dairy protects against colon cancer, breast cancer, and metabolic syndrome. I dont have an objection to plant-based alternatives that achieve the same effect.

                    4. My objection is to the selective use of scientific evidence to convey the impression milk is harmful. Which is what we get from Dr G. Overselling the message. The vast majority of the evidence suggests dairy is beneficial, not harmful. In my previous post I described a possible reason why this is so. At least in terms cardiovascular disease. You have challenged this. Which is OK because it is early days with this stuff.
                    There are also scientific reasons why milk is anti-carcinogenic, and I will try and detail them next time I post. (I am running out of hours in the day)

                    5. I believe nutritionfacts would would be better advised to concentrate on plant-based alternatives for those who have an ethical or environmental objection to dairy, and meat. Selectively choosing data to convey the impression dairy is harmful, when the majority of evidence suggests it is instead beneficial, only destroys your credibility as a provider of objective science. It is preaching to the converted, whilst alienating the rest. [Can I call it ‘Trumpist’ without creating an international incident?]

  15. Okay, I am trying to understand the whole Ketones and Cancer part.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3047616/ PubMed has both perspectives.

    This one says that Ketones are “Super-fuels” for Cancer growth “Finally, given our current findings that ketones increase tumor growth, cancer patients and their dieticians may want to re-consider the use of a “ketogenic diet” as a form of anti-cancer therapy.”

    And others it slowed tumor growth mostly if it caused weight loss and blood sugar improvement.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5450454/

    It has to be able to work or the KetoPet Sanctuary wouldn’t have been able to shrink the 6 tumors, but it seems like the logic would be that if they don’t eat low enough carbs and animal proteins that cancer might speed up instead of shrink? I think.

    1. John,

      I am sure it is on the “cancer” list.

      I have pondered it for my dog but vegan has done a really good job so far.

      It doesn’t feel like his Cancer is going away though.

      It just stalled it quite a bit.

      Honestly, he won’t eat enough vegetables and stopped taking his pills.

      He does get a pinch of nutritional yeast every day and he does take his CBD oil, but it doesn’t seem like it has been a miracle substance.

      My dear friend has decided to do surgery and go more into Keto. Disappointed but not at all surprised.

      Different people are motivated differently. I would jump through dietary hoops to avoid surgery and she would jump through surgical hoops to not eat Vegan. All of my friends are so passionate about it. We talked about the fact that she got Cancer on Keto tells me that she wasn’t low enough sugar and animal products to make it work. She has been using frankincense and myrrh and lavender and other essential oils for months and months and those didn’t work either and it is the doTERRA brand, which is considered a good brand. She has been taking them internally for 9 months or so and has been using them externally over the past few weeks, but it hadn’t shrunk at all. She had a biopsy today and the doctor said that he has done thousands of biopsies and he told her that in his opinion it is a 99.95% chance of Cancer and that it was a fairly big size and she would need a PET Scan and surgery.

  16. Totally off the subject:

    Is everybody in the US aware that a Presidential Alert is supposed to take place today at 2:15 EST? ‘Tis said it will be via cellphones or something.

  17. Whenever I watch Dr. Greger’s videos, which I find immensely fascinating, my girlfriend will step into the room and say, “Is that the guy who really hates eggs?”

    Dr. Greger seems to cherry pick studies that help drive his anti-animal product narrative. While virtually every other scientist on the planet finds quantifiable evidence of egg and dairy benefits, Dr. Greger will find the handful of conflicting studies that say otherwise. He’s like that one scientist in the room who adamantly opposes the idea that humans cause global warming. :)

    Having said that, there is an immense library of beneficial information on his site and in his videos, particularly if you are a vegetarian or vegan. For that, I am forever grateful for his research into the sea of clinical studies and for interpreting that data in a way that’s clear to the lay person.

    1. This is total absurd made up nonsense…”While virtually every other scientist on the planet finds quantifiable evidence of egg and dairy benefits,”

      Care to now deny climate change? You can be two for two.

      1. This is but one meta analysis showing a correlation with more than five eggs per week and incidence of breast cancer.
        I can multiply this negative finding in many regards specific to eggs many more times. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26293984
        Negating your claim…”While virtually every other scientist on the planet finds quantifiable evidence of egg and dairy benefits,”

        This is a published scientific study of many studies a meta analysis.

        1. Do you as well hold this opinion on milk…” the most nutritious food on planet earth.”

          Or is it just eggs or both?

    2. mtceege, completely agree with your comments. It also coincides with the views of more objective commentators. For example:

      ‘What follows is a review of *How Not to Die’s* highlights and hiccups alike — with the premise that benefiting from the book’s strengths requires navigating around its weaknesses. Readers who approach the book as a starting place rather than incontrovertible truth will stand the best chance of doing both’

      Throughout *How Not to Die*, Greger distills a vast body of literature into a simple, black-and-white narrative — a feat only possible through *cherry picking*, one of the nutrition world’s most gainfully employed fallacies.

      Cherry picking is the act of selectively choosing or suppressing evidence to fit a predefined framework. In Greger’s case, that means presenting research when it supports plant-based eating and ignoring it (or creatively spinning it) when it doesn’t.

      In many cases, spotting Greger’s picked cherries is as simple as checking the book’s claims against their cited references. These foibles are small but frequent.
      https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/how-not-to-die-review#section1.

      ‘That he is controversial has little to do with him being a vegan. It’s more because he makes no attempt to be objective or unbiased when he presents “evidence” to support his claims. There’s rarely presentation of credible opposing arguments, and often his interpretation of studies are simply wrong – which he largely gets away with because the vast majority of people won’t check the actual references’.

      https://www.reddit.com/r/nutrition/comments/6b1ik6/seriously_dr_michael_greger_is_controversial/

      Even complementary reviews are highly qualified:

      ‘Impartiality: 2/5’

      Source: © The Health Sciences Academy ®. All Rights Reserved.

      Read more: https://thehealthsciencesacademy.org

      Despite the seemingly nonpartisan branding, “Nutrition Facts” until last year was called the “Vegan Research Institute,” so that should tell you what you need to know about the agenda of the site Whatever Greger calls his project, debunking him simply requires going through the minutiae of the studies he cites . It’s a laborious task, but thankfully someone has done it for us.
      You can read her full analysis , but she finds a number of examples of Greger ludicrously citing research.
      For example, one study Greger cites as showing that “plant-based” diets protect against kidney failure actually indicates that low-fat *dairy *products are also protective. The devil is in the details, but Greger is in the business of making overly broad statements that fit his narrative.
      https://www.humanewatch.org/hsus_doc_exposed_as_schlock/

      Its a shame, because his pro-plant stuff is interesting, and nobody presents nutritional data like he does. It is outstanding. But its the cherry picked, suppressed or incomplete evidence. The highlighting of individual cases or data that seemingly confirm a particular position whilst ignoring or dismissing anything which contradicts the overriding premise. A fallacious confirmation bias.It extends to blocking me from posting on this website ….other than as a response to the comments of others. Its censorship, but its his show so….tough.
      We are not being provided objective scientific information. It becomes science which is part fact, part fiction. Most people can make the distinction between the two. However the gullible or desperately committed often seem incapable of doing so.

      1. It is exactly his show. Most here follow him and take his things under consideration in a independent way. You come here drop bunches of S(*& bombs and then expect the show to be all about you and responding to you. Suddenly out of a blue sky you come citing this and that and how this is wrong and that is wrong with multiple multiple studies and we are going to take you to task on each and every one? And then when someone does, it has no effect what so ever and you repeat the same thing over and over.

        As if the world does revolve around you. If it does set up your own site call it the Dr Greger is bad site and stay there answering how he is.
        But no…you come here plainly repeatedly disrupting the site..

        Most here will field honest questions and some dishonest ones as well. A study here a study there is can be explained.
        But no…thrown multiple studies on the wall sticking what will, or not, then if things get to hot….devolve the stance.
        Concurrent with dishonest claims.
        Go play you tube comment section if you want to influence the general public. You are not influencing anyone here in this manner and in general just ticking peoples off. There are multiple sites already devoted to milk dairy anti Dr Greger and this and that. Why do you continually seek to devolve this one site where like minded peoples who find Dr Greger not perfect but mainly on target, meet to talk and comment on his videos?
        Is not the 97% of people who believe in your type nutrition and follow it the average American enough for you?
        You must have it all and crush us under your thumb with your volume of studies and claims?
        WE must all then have to believe in your cause and your interpretation……???
        Why this inquisition?
        You are not wanted here. This type thing happens probably at least once every two weeks…it happens. Someone will show up armed and ready with this pile of studies and asking what for. So they are generally moderately but firmly rebutted with study.

        But you…this is over and over. And nothing changes despite replies. So what is served?
        WE are the 3% or so that believe in WFPB. So be happy you are firmly winning, everyone is fat dying of heart disease most are diabetic and many will have cognitive decline as they age…..so be happy they believe in dairy and meat and all the rest…you have won.

        Let us loosers alone.

        1. Here we loosers seem to represent what the world health organization and most all other recognized nutritional bodies advocate…reduction in sat fat..
          WHO
          Unhealthy diets and physical inactivity are major risk factors for chronic diseases. Reports of international and national experts and reviews of the current scientific evidence recommend goals for nutrient intake in order to prevent chronic diseases.
          For diet, recommendations for populations and individuals should include the following:
          achieve energy balance and a healthy weight
          limit energy intake from total fats and shift fat consumption away from saturated fats to unsaturated fats and towards the elimination of trans-fatty acids
          increase consumption of fruits and vegetables, and legumes, whole grains and nuts
          limit the intake of free sugars
          limit salt (sodium) consumption from all sources and ensure that salt is iodized
          These recommendations need to be considered when preparing national policies and dietary guidelines, taking into account the local situation.

          Dr Gregers arm of influence has the whole world bamboozled…..and you are carrying the torch of truth to lead us those who lie in darkness….how about you go tell it to WHO.

          1. Stop by the FDA as well Dr Greger’s long arm of disinformation and poorly read studies extends to them as well…

            FDA on Sat fat..
            Health Facts
            Most Americans exceed the recommended limits for saturated fat in the diet.
            Saturated fat can raise the levels of total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein (LDL or “bad”) cholesterol in the blood — which, in turn, can increase the risk of developing cardiovascular disease. Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in both men and women in the U.S.
            The Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommends consuming less than 10% of calories per day from saturated fat by replacing saturated fat with monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats while staying within recommended limits for calories and total dietary fat.”

            Fools!! Fools!!! Dr Greger is mad…this blogger guy, Granger, he is right he is setting us all straight…bringing us into the light when once we sat in darkness…….FDA WHO….and I could list about 15 or so more….all wrong so wrong!!!

            Greger is a witch, a witch I say,…all under his spell. to hate this good good thing of sat fat.

            1. GREGER…..!!! you witch……
              American heart association……even them!!

              AHA Recommendation
              The American Heart Association recommends aiming for a dietary pattern that achieves 5% to 6% of calories from saturated fat.
              For example, if you need about 2,000 calories a day, no more than 120 of them should come from saturated fat.
              That’s about 13 grams of saturated fat per day.”

              Wrong wrong I tell you all….his guy Granger has it all right…fools fools….

              1. Oh no no no no….
                Greger!!!!!

                Witch!!!
                “”Americans currently consume more than 11% of calories from saturated fat, and since many people overconsume total calories, the amount of saturated fat intake is high both as a percentage of total calories and number of grams,” says Heather Rasmussen, PhD, RD, LDN, coauthor of the Academy’s position paper and an assistant professor of clinical nutrition at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago.
                People who don’t read past the “butter is not so bad” type of headlines in the popular press will find it tough to understand how some researchers and leading cardiovascular and nutrition organizations can reach such different conclusions. A closer examination of the evidence is required.
                Much Ado About Misleading Research
                Chowdhury’s controversial review included 27 randomized, controlled trials and 49 observational studies, which involved more than 600,000 participants in 18 countries.2 The studies used measures of fatty acid biomarkers (circulating or in adipose tissue) and food frequency and diet history questionnaires to assess fatty acid exposure, with varying methods based on study type. Shortly after Chowdhury’s meta-analysis was released, some corrections were published, although these didn’t affect the primary author’s conclusions.5 Other experts, however, strongly disagreed with the conclusions.
                “Chowdhury’s analysis was deeply flawed due to omission of important studies, extraction of incorrect data from some studies, incorrect interpretation of their own findings, and failure to mention results of other, superior analyses,” says Walter Willett, MD, DrPH, chair of the department of nutrition at Harvard School of Public Health, who recommended a retraction of the study. “The analysis missed the important benefits from both omega-3 and omega-6 polyunsaturated fats due to those problems, and therefore also missed the important benefits of replacing saturated fat with polyunsaturated fats.”
                According to David Katz, MD, MPH, FACPM, FACP, director of the Yale-Griffin Prevention Research Center, “All the Chowdhury meta-analysis showed is that if you look over time in the United States, we had a very high rate of heart disease when our saturated fat intake was a bit higher, and we have the same very high rate of heart disease now that our intake of saturated fat is a little bit lower. There are two important points here: one, our intake of saturated fat is only a bit lower, and two, we’ve replaced it with sugars and starch, not with kale and broccoli. There is no evidence here even hinting at the notion that saturated fat is good for us.”

                no no no…all false…..Gregers long arm spreads to the American college of nutrition…oh WHERE DOES IT END?????

                1. NO NO NO…Greger strikes again the British nutrition foundation……when will it end

                  “The evidence on saturated fat and cardiovascular disease
                  Whilst dietary advice remains to reduce saturated fat, a small number of published systematic reviews have highlighted a lack of an association between intake of saturated fat and higher risk of cardiovascular mortality from prospective studies. However these types of studies have inherent limitations to investigate this specific relationship. For example the use of baseline dietary assessments as a means of classifying subjects’ diets over a period of 20–30 years, particularly with respect to dietary fat intakes which have changed dramatically over this period, is problematic. And because of the many limitations, reviews can miss one of the key points – the important benefit of replacing saturated fat with unsaturated fats.
                  It is key, in this time of debate and controversy, that we understand the science behind the current dietary advice. Most saturated fatty acids (SFA), with chain lengths between 12-16 carbons, increase low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL -C) levels compared with unsaturated fatty acids. Increased LDL-cholesterol is directly associated to an increased coronary heart disease risk, and decreasing LDL-cholesterol (e.g. with cholesterol lowering drugs) reduces heart disease and mortality. The evidence from large clinical trials demonstrates very clearly that lowering LDL cholesterol reduces our risk of death overall and from heart attacks and strokes, regardless of age. Dietary guidelines, which are determined following a review of all relevant evidence available at the time, therefore recommend limiting SFA intake.
                  Even the authors of peer reviewed studies with findings that may support a more controversial view would themselves openly acknowledge limitations in their research design. For example, in a review (highlighted in the editorial by Malhotra et al.) that suggested no association between LDL-cholesterol and heart disease, the researchers acknowledge that the lack of examination of statin use in studies could be a confounding factor, in that the people found to have the highest LDL cholesterol levels at the beginning of the study may have then been started on statins, and this could have dramatically cut their mortality risk.
                  The multifactorial nature of diet-disease relationships
                  The relationship between saturated fatty acids and heart health is more complex than the simple message of ‘saturated fatty acids are bad’. Whether or not the risk of heart disease is reduced with lower intake of saturated fat is dependent on what replaces saturated fatty acids in the diet. This is a point that often gets lost in the debate. There is strong and consistent evidence that replacing saturated fatty acids with unsaturated fatty acids reduces the risk of CVD events and coronary-related mortality, as illustrated in a recent Cochrane systematic review (Hooper et al. 2015).
                  The food matrix adds to the complexity of the relationship between dietary fat and health. Not only do individual saturated fatty acids have different effects on blood cholesterol, but not all foods containing a higher proportion of saturated fatty acids will have the same effect on health because of the presence of other health promoting constituents. The diet as a whole or the overall dietary pattern is crucial when it comes to looking at the relationship between nutrition and heart disease.
                  It’s also important to recognise the complexity of the development of heart disease. Atherosclerosis is characterized by a complex, multifactorial pathophysiology which is affected not just by blood cholesterol levels, but also by many other factors including systemic inflammation, blood pressure, endothelial function, and obesity. So blood cholesterol is a risk factor for heart disease amongst many others and we need to consider how individual foods or preferably dietary patterns may act on these multiple pathways.

        2. Thanks for reply Ron,

          1. I have to remind this is a website called Nutritionfacts that purports to educate on nutrition science, not unscientific religious, philosophical, political, or ideological belief systems. The whole point of science (as distinct from religion) is that it must be constantly challenged to establish the scientific truth. As painful as that may be. Otherwise we just unquestionably accept every damn lie that every false prophet in the history of mankind has spun us. By challenging, observers such as your good self can make informed nutritional decisions based upon the best available science.

          2. You may be comfortable with the unquestioning acceptance of Dr G’s message on nutritional science, but you do not necessarily represent the views of every reader or viewer. Moreover, some people prefer to be persuaded one way or another.

          3. Dr G is not the Messiah. It is most unwise to believe that of anyone. He is a very clever and informative leader, but is just like the rest of us, very fallible. Moreover, because of his vegan bias one needs to be able to discriminate between the believable and unbelievable. That is, if nutritional science is your principal interest. Your particular interests may lie elsewhere, but that is not a good reason for me to not challenge his scientific message.

          4. I more or less agree the world be a better place if we focused more on plant-based diets. But in many parts of the world it would also diminish health outcomes.

          5. Please try and keep things in perspective. The world will not end if it is ultimately proven (beyond reasonable doubt) that dairy is more nutritionally beneficial than harmful. On the bright side, it will instead mean millions of children in third world countries will be spared malnutrition and Kwashiorkor. It would mean we wont wipe out 264 million dairy cows as a species, including 40 million in India. It means 150 million dairy farmers and their families (12-14% of the world’s population) will not lose their livelihood.

          6. I understand your legitimate concern for the welfare of animals. But you also have to be realistic. There is a very close co-dependency between dairy cows and humans. It is true humans can survive without dairy, but less efficiently. However, as a species dairy cows cannot survive without our patronage. Sad, but true.

          7. I agree with most of the objections to industrialised dairy farming, and believe there should be more stringent regulation of them. Unfortunately, this will not alter the fact that China is directing its full attention to industrialised dairying on a huge scale.

          8. As for your complaint about repetition. Because I have been blocked by Nutritionfacts from posting I have no record on what I have previously posted. I have to rely on memory, which is ordinary at the best of times.

          9. If you wish to reduce dairy consumption you have to make the argument on ethical and environmental grounds. You will not win the debate on the basis of nutritional science.

          10. You made reference to WHO. This may interest:

          de Souza et al., World Health Organisation (WHO), Karolinska Institutet

          *Saturated fats are not associated with all cause mortality, CVD, CHD, ischemic stroke, or type 2 diabetes, but the evidence is heterogeneous with methodological limitations. Trans fats are associated with all cause mortality, total CHD, and CHD mortality, probably because of higher levels of intake of industrial trans fats than ruminant trans fats. Dietary guidelines must carefully consider the health effects of recommendations for alternative macronutrients to replace trans fats and saturated fats’.*

          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26268692

          11.* ‘As part of the sugar industry campaign, Mr. Hickson secretly paid two influential Harvard scientists to publish a major review paper in 1967 that minimized the link between sugar and heart health and shifted blame to saturated fat … Hickson left the sugar industry in the early 1970s to work for the Cigar Research Council, a tobacco industry organization’. *

          https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/21/well/eat/sugar-industry-long-downplayed-potential-harms-of-sugar.html

          12. For decades we have been advised by the experts that dairy/saturated fat is unhealthy. For the most part, this is no longer true. The overwhelming evidence nowadays suggests the problem lies elsewhere.
          Moreover, the saturated fat in milk contains the fat soluble vitamins, and CLA. All provide medicinal benefits. The science on this is very complex, and nobody knows precisely what is going on. However, the more likely culprits (I am summarising) are as follows:

          * low Omega 3/6 ratio. In western diets it is up to 1:50. Ideally it should be 1:1. (excessive omega 6 outcompetes and reduces omega 3 levels. This affects PUFA metabolism) * high omega-6 levels derived from processed and high temperature, deep-fried foods, foods cooked in vegetable oil (margarine, shortening, soy oil, canola oil, corn oil, hydrogenated or partially hydrogenated fats) * excess and oxidised linoleic acid in high-temp cooking oils. This can causes oxidative stress, oxidised LDL, reduced HDL cholesterol, chronic low-grade inflammation, atherosclerosis * exacerbating the problem by replacing saturated fat with omega-6 oils

          * Solution Increased omega 3 (sardines, anchovies, herring, salmon, fish oil), decreased omega 6 vegetable oils and high-temperature cooking, adequate saturated fat (preferably dairy) to help protect cholesterol against oxidisation.

          Note:

          * When cholesterol is bound to linoleic acid, it oxidises. Conversely, saturated fat protects cholesterol from oxidation.

          * The linoleic acid in milk fat is conjugated (conjugated linoleic acid, CLA). In fact, it is a trans fat, but a uniquely beneficial one. The evidence suggests that dairy CLA protects against cancer and heart disease.
          But not in supplement form.

          * Saturated fats shift the LDL cholesterol from small, dense LDL to large LDL – which *lowers *heart disease risk

          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9583838

          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20089734

          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8299884

          * Saturated fats raise HDL. This should also *lower* risk:

          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1386252

          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12716665

          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7762523

          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10584043

          * Small, dense LDL particles are much more likely to become *oxidised *and lodged in arteries

          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1590824

          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7616114

          https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/000293439390144E

          Saturated fats appear to reduce small, dense LDL particles and raise HDL.
          Therefore, they should *decrease *heart disease risk. In summary: Saturated fats transition LDL particles from small and dense to large and raise HDL. The most likely outcome is a decrease in heart disease risk.

          * I have not mentioned sugar (which is obviously harmful), and plant-based diets (which are protective).

          13. There are many sides to this debate, not just one. You wont get the gospel from any one individual. Its best to keep an open mind.

          14. If my posts distress you, it is perhaps better you don’t read them.

      2. Pete, do you feel properly chastised by NM ron? (I hope you’re not cowering under the table.)

        He does have his rant moments, as we all know. He’s also the board’s Hall Monitor. :-)

        1. Aaaah, no YR I dont. I only feel chastised when I get the science wrong, or my logic fails me. Which too readily occurs if one narrows the horizon instead of broadening it. More generally, lacking nuance is quite a burden in life. Worthy of as much sympathy as condemnation. .

    1. I have heard people who are lactose intolerant have better results with goats milk as its nutritional profile/make up is different than cows milk.

    2. I could find no Medline studies on goat milk’s affect on polyphenols and it appears you are correct there is less casein in goat’s milk compared to cow’s milk. However, I would advise caution on adding goat’s milk to your diet. Here are two cautionary links that may help you decide. And remember you are still taking in animal protein and casein, even if less and research has indicated the risks with such intake.
      http://www.berkeleywellness.com/healthy-eating/nutrition/article/goats-milk-and-cows-milk-faceoff
      https://www.baumancollege.org/forum/index.php?topic=13774.0/

      Hope these help.

      1. Joan,

        If one is a strict vegan, one does not consume cow or goats milk. But that is not a decision that should be based upon milk being harmful. On the contrary, milk proteins are protective in very dramatic and unique ways.

        *A study published in The Lancet that shows dairy consumption is associated with a lower risk of mortality and major cardiovascular disease events in a multinational cohort.*

        *Prof Nita Forouhi, MRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, said:*

        *“There is a widespread misconception that eating dairy products is harmful for cardiovascular health, and this study lays that to rest once again, adding to other research. *

        *http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-study-looking-at-dairy-consumption-cardiovascular-disease-and-death/

  18. can you still receive the same nutritional benefits from coffee if you add a nut milk such as macadamia Milk or help milk?

    1. For those who are interested, there is at least one study* which has made a serious comparison of the various milks. The concerns about plant-based milk alternatives relate mostly to infants and children. Whether this also applies to adult consumption is less certain. However, I am assuming it does (but to a less significant degree) until demonstrated otherwise. My concern is this. Cows milk has evolved over millennia into a complex food involving synergy between a multitude of components. Attempting to emulate this is not simply a matter of mixing a heap of raw ingredients in a vat and expecting it to function in the same way. It wont. I also have concerns about (undegraded) carrageenan used in some dairy products (yoghurt, ice cream) and also vegan cheeses, non-dairy deserts. It is also widely used in milk alternatives (almond, coconut, hemp, rice, and soy). Last time I checked it had been linked to chronic inflammation, malignancies, diabetes and stomach problems (Tobacman et al). Its probably a good reason to make your own (full cream) yoghurt, ice cream and milk alternatives, especially if you have IBD. Alternatively, purchase carrageenan-free products: https://www.cornucopia.org/shopping-guide-to-avoiding-organic-foods-with-carrageenan/

      * Sarita et al (The authors report no conflicts of interest):

      *‘Results: Commonly available nondairy beverages are derived from almond, cashew, coconut, hazelnut, hemp, oat, rice, and soy. Cow’s milk has higher protein content and quality compared with most of these products. It was noted that most of these beverages are fortified with calcium and vitamin D. The bioavailability of these substances after fortification is, however, not available’.*

      *‘Conclusions: Nondairy milk beverages vary in their nutritional profiles.
      These should not be considered nutritional substitutes for cow’s milk until nutrient quality and bioavailability are established.’*

      *‘Many manufacturers add the word “milk” to their product’s name, suggesting a healthy beverage that would provide an advantage to their product. We show that these beverages manufactured differ from cow’s milk in nutritional content. Inappropriate substitution with these beverages increases the risk of nutritional deficiency (6,7). The quantity of several nutrients in cow’s milk has been described in detail (9). Similar data for most of the nondairy beverages is, however, not available. Therefore, it is difficult to compare all the nutritional constituents with cow’s milk.
      Another matter of concern is the bioavailability of the fortified nutrients in the nondairy beverages. The physical state of the substance in the fortified beverage and its interaction with the food matrix are important determinants of absorbability (12). There is, however, no information about the bioavailability of fortified nutrients in nondairy beverages. These issues raise concerns over the trend toward increased consumption of nondairy beverages among children.*

      *Cow’s milk has >100% DIAAS value for all the indispensable amino acids with lowest DIAAS of 118% (11,16). The high protein quality in cow’s milk arises both from its nutritional value and from its physiological properties (14). Cow’s milk also contains proteins with biological activities including enzymes, immunoglobulin, bactericides, hormones, mediators, and growth factors (14,18). We could not compare the protein quality in other nondairy beverages, except soy and rice protein, because the information about DIAAS and the amino acid composition in those products is not available. This raises unanswerable questions about the protein quality of those products.* *Carbohydrate and Fat Content*

      *Fat content in cow’s milk is energy dense and a rich source of cholesterol and saturated fatty acids (19) and is thought to be important for the developing brain. After 2 years, a switch to low-fat or fat-free milk is recommended to reduce saturated fat intake (20–22). Newer studies, however, suggest that a high intake of dairy fat can be associated with a lower risk of developing central obesity while a low intake of dairy fat can be associated with a higher risk of central obesity (23). One recent pediatric study showed that consumption of low-fat milk was associated with increased risk of overweight/obesity between 2 and 4 years of age (22). Although nondairy beverages are low in saturated fats, most of the products contain energy equivalent to milk, which is derived mostly from sugars and other carbohydrates.*

      *Several micronutrients including vitamins and minerals are essential for growth and development. Nine shortfall nutrients identified in the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee report are vitamin A, vitamin D, vitamin E, folate, calcium, magnesium, potassium, fiber, and iron for the premenopausal females. Among these shortfall nutrients, calcium, vitamin D, fiber and potassium were classified as nutrients of public health concern because their under consumption is linked to adverse health outcomes (24).* *Calcium Content*

      *Calcium is essential for healthy bones and teeth. It also has several vital functions within cells predominantly as a second messenger (25). Most of the nondairy beverages are fortified with calcium (**Fig. 2**A and B).
      Adding calcium to a product, however, does not guarantee nutritional equivalence with other products containing similar amounts of calcium because the bioavailability of calcium varies significantly in fortified beverages (12). Cow’s milk provides more than half of the RDA for calcium in a typical diet of toddlers and young children. Cow’s milk has a high content of calcium and that calcium is highly bioavailable (14). Other milk constituents such as lactose and casein phosphopeptides are known to increase the intestinal permeability for calcium salts and increase intestinal absorption, respectively (14,18).* *Magnesium Content*

      *Magnesium, a cofactor for several enzyme systems that regulate diverse biochemical reactions, is required for energy production, and membrane transport. Soy and hemp-based beverages are good sources of magnesium. Zinc is essential for the function of several enzymes and plays a role in DNA repair, cell growth and replication, gene expression, and protein and lipid metabolism. Cow’s milk is a good zinc source and the zinc is more bioavailable than nonmilk sources (18).* *Back to Top** | **Article Outline* *Vitamins Content*

      *Cow’s milk is a rich source of vitamins including riboflavin, vitamin E, vitamin A, folate, thiamin, niacin, vitamin B6, and vitamin B12. It contains higher amount of riboflavin compared with other products.
      Fortified cow’s milk is also a key dietary source of vitamin D in early childhood. Replacing cow’s milk with nondairy beverages could put children at unnecessary risk of complications from low dietary vitamin D. Severe rickets has been described in children who did not drink cow’s milk (6).*

      *Nondairy milk beverages are perceived to be healthy but the products available vary remarkably in their nutritional profiles; most have low protein, mineral, and vitamin content and the quality of the protein is less than cow’s milk. If these products are portrayed as substitutes for cow’s milk in the diets of young children, then protein content and bioavailability of the nutritional additives need to be considered by manufacturers and consumers.*

      *The present study presents information on nondairy beverages in a way that they can be compared with dairy milk, the preferred beverage for children recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Centers for Disease Control, the US Department of Agriculture and provided in WIC packages unless there is a medical contraindication to its use.*

      *The present study does have limitations. The first is the local nature of the survey for the products. The Web sites for all the products, however, indicate they are distributed nationally. Each and every product were not assessed, because the number is overwhelming. The focus was on the product labeled as “original” in the major categories identified. The Web pages of the manufacturers did not contain complete information and because of this, important attributes, such as protein quality and nutrient bioavailability could not be assessed for all the products. In conclusion, cow’s milk plays an important role in the diet of toddlers and young children as it is a rich source of nutrients primarily protein, fats, vitamins, and minerals.
      Cow’s milk should not be removed from the diets of young children unless there is a medical indication to do so. In that circumstance a dietitian can review the entire diet to be sure, it satisfies the nutrient requirement. It is also important that nondiary beverages should not be considered a nutritional substitute for cow’s milk until nutrient quality and bioavailability is established.*

      https://journals.lww.com/jpgn/Fulltext/2017/05000/A_Comparison_of_the_Nutritional_Value_of_Cow_s.28.aspx

  19. Pete, I always avoid anything containing carrageenan. Although one of the alphabet agencies would have us think differently, I say it’s nasty stuff.

    Also, anything with xanthan gum in it. (I distrust all those “gums,” tellya the truth.) Xanthan gum is in practically every non-gluten product out there. Those who have trouble with gluten (I don’t claim to be one of them) can experience additional grief with the xanthan gum.

    1. Cows milk with coffee has both positive and negative effects. Negative because it may reduce (bind) some chlorogenic acid, and positive inasmuch the binding minimises stomach discomfort suffered by those sensitive to acid (pH 5) in coffee. (chlorogenic acid also stimulates gastric acid production). These effects are related to the fat content of milk, not its proteins. Presumably therefore, the effects are diminished or eliminated with the addition of semi-skimmed or skim milk. Not sure how the vegetable oils in milk alternatives affect chlorogenic acid, but I expect there will be some studies done. Chlorogenic acid levels also decline in the presence of heat.

  20. what about “other milks”?
    …by which I mean other plant based drinks that act as milk substitutes…

    I do react to soy milk, though not to fermented soy… so I would use oat drink for convenience and taste, or home made cashew, or sunflower lechitin as an emulsifyer, with an oil of choice and water…
    did you know there is flax seed “milk”? at least you can make it yourself, here I cant buy it…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This