牛奶 為甚麼喝牛奶的人平均壽命更短？

在我的關於牛奶和骨頭的視頻中 我討論了這個系列的研究 兩世紀以來追蹤了一百萬人 發現女性喝很多牛奶的人 有60%更高的肌肉削弱風險 研究人員提出 這可能是由於Galactose 這是牛奶糖的脂肪脂肪的破壞成分 根據人們的血液水平高 因為他們出生時無法清除這些物質 所以牛奶糖的脂肪脂肪會變得脆弱 但Galactose並非所有東西都能做到 Galactose是科學家使用 來加快醫學生物的老化 因為它能夠避免老化 由於它可以引發腦部的腫瘤變化 心臟肚子的肝臟等 生命縮短的動物顯示了 精神複雜 和肝臟腫瘤 減少了免疫反應 和減少了生育能力 而且不需要太多 只要一兩杯牛奶一天的人類相等 但人類並不是牛 例如我們知道了一個世紀以來 that you can cause cataracts in rats by feeding them lots of lactose or galactose, but the epidemiological data is mixed as to whether dairy is doing the same in people. The Swedish studies didn't just look at bones though, but milk and mortality. More milk was associated with more death. In women, three glasses of milk a day was associated with nearly twice the risk of dying prematurely. The medical journal editorial accompanying the study emphasized that given the rise in milk consumption around the world, the role of milk and mortality needs to be established definitively now. With the then-largest ever study on milk intake and mortality suggesting such adverse effects, Harvard researchers stepped in with three of their cohorts to perform a study twice as big to see if the earlier findings were just a fluke. Following more than 200,000 men and women for up to three decades, they confirmed the bad news. Those who consume more dairy live significantly shorter lives. Every half serving more of regular milk a day was associated with 9% increased risk of dying from cardiovascular disease, 11% increased risk of dying from cancer, and 11% increased risk of dying from all causes put together. This is all the more remarkable since milk drinking is typically associated with healthier habits, like more exercise and less smoking and drinking, though they did try to control for all these factors. Of course, it does matter what you eat instead. This Harvard analysis, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, found that swapping dairy for meat, red meat, poultry, or fish would not be expected to do your body any favors, and you would be expected to live longer eating dairy than eggs or processed meat. It's only when you swap dairy for plant-based sources of protein that they find a significant drop in mortality risk. When all the milk and mortality studies are put together, it appears the excess mortality risk is limited to regular, as opposed to low-fat, like skim milk. This suggests it may be more of a saturated fat issue, though that doesn't explain why soured or fermented milk appears to have the opposite impact. So maybe it's both the butterfat and the galactose? A randomized crossover study of low-fat dairy, fermented dairy, and unfermented dairy found that steady subjects had significantly higher IL-6 inflammation levels during unfermented regular dairy weeks compared to when they were switched to either their fermented or low-fat dairy products. The fermentation process can eliminate some of the galactose. As we age, our ability to detoxify galactose declines by as much as 40%, which would make it even more important to avoid dairy later in life, if indeed galactose is the culprit. But if galactose does its dirty work through oxidation and inflammation, might increased fruit and vegetable intake help mediate some of the harm? In animals, galactose-induced aging can be slowed by fruit and vegetable consumption. For example, feeding rats blueberries can decrease the brain damage induced by the milk sugar. Might it be able to help with the higher levels of oxidative stress and inflammation found among human milk drinkers? Unfortunately, women drinking three or more glasses of milk a day had more than twice the risk of hip fractures compared to women drinking less than a glass a day, regardless of whether they were eating more or less fruits and vegetables. But those high milk consumers consuming five or more servings of fruits and vegetables a day did reduce their chance of dying prematurely to just 60% greater than those drinking less milk, so antioxidant-rich foods may be able to modify the elevated death rate associated with high milk consumption. Highly influential advocacy organizations such as the U.S. National Osteoporosis Foundation or the Europe-based International Osteoporosis Foundation continue to push dairy, drugs, and calcium supplements, despite the countervailing evidence that I've reviewed. Why do they keep pushing dairy, drugs, and supplements? Perhaps because their objectivity is compromised by the influence of their commercial sponsors that include companies that market, you guessed it, dairy, drugs, and supplements. Most recent reviews on dairy and osteoporosis in the English-language medical literature were found to be written by those with ties to the dairy industry. The primary justification for inclusion of dairy in federal nutrition recommendations is based on purported bone benefits that are not supported by the available evidence. What if dietary guidelines were fashioned without commercial influence? In 2019, Canada decided to exclude industry reports and stick to the science of the formation of the new dietary guidelines. What a concept. Major changes included a new emphasis on plant-based food intake, limiting junk, and the removal of the dairy food group.