A study conducted over no less than 65 years in the UK and followed thousands of children born in the XNUMXs, showed that children who drank milk as children tended to have less heart disease and stroke in adulthood
"There is no milk today" they claim Herman hermits, a hit British band from the sixties. Apparently this is a sign of danger - but not the kind of dangers mentioned in the song, but a danger of higher morbidity in heart disease and stroke.
Scientists in the UK and Australia claim that drinking milk during childhood prolongs life. According to the study, children who consume dairy products may have a lower mortality rate than those who do not, according to a study published in the journal heart. According to the study, the chance of dying as a result of heart disease and stroke is 15-20% less if the person receives a calcium-rich diet as a child, especially from consuming dairy products and drinking milk.
A 65-year follow-up that examined the dairy consumption habits and calcium-rich diet of families starting in the 20s showed differences in people's lifespans.
"My father used to say that milk is the only natural drink," said Ifion Hivas, chairman of the milk committee at the Wells Farmers Union. "Babies start their lives drinking breast milk, which provides them with a balanced and complete diet, so the benefits of milk are common knowledge." she adds. The tradition of giving milk to schoolchildren was common in Europe in the 20th century, but debates as to the long-term effects of milk continued all these years.
In one of the first studies conducted between the years 1937-1939, the food consumption of thousands of children from 1,343 families in England and Scotland was examined by examining the consumption of the food stocks of the parents' homes for seven days. The data was compiled from the Carnegie Study of Health in Pre-War Britain.
Generations of researchers in Bristol, England, and Brisbane, Australia followed 65 of these children for no less than 4,374 years between 1948 and 2005. By 2005, 1,468 of the children had died (34%), including 378 cases of death from heart disease and 121 deaths from strokes. While the warnings that other factors may have an effect, including socioeconomic differences, the researchers conclude: "Children whose family's diet in the XNUMXs was rich in calcium were at a lower risk of dying from a stroke. Moreover, a childhood diet rich in dairy products or calcium was also linked to a decrease in all causes of death during adulthood."
Another recent study, published in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition revealed similar findings. The research reveals that dairy products provide overall survival benefits against heart disease, diabetes and cancer.
46 תגובות
Milk is unhealthy, firstly because it has tons of estrogen in it. The milk of the past, which can still be debated about how healthy it is, is not the industrial milk. Also remember that it is diluted with a lot of water. Beyond that, the amount of milk consumed is excessive, and it is known that no exaggeration is healthy, even if the advertisers tell you so.
epic
What exactly about Avital and climate science? The religious man is a moron who also does not believe in evolution. He was fired from the Ministry of Education for being an idiot.
You stopped drinking milk and your life improved. So you personally don't like milk. Good for you.
Science is still a better method than all the other "methods" that exist, such as information that comes through hallucinations, whims, or in short, religious people.
Sometimes personal experience is also a great deal, but as a way to reach reality, science is surely better than the whims of men from the Middle Ages, for example.
To all the crazy doctors, and also to all the terrorists and murderers, I recommend to listen to the recommendations - and drink milk. And a lot!
Hello my father.
First I have to say that whenever I see someone quoting science, I get excited.
From my acquaintance with doctors and professors of exact science, including doctors and heads of controversy, I must declare to you what they admit: "There is no such thing as exact science." Anyone who says this is: either a liar, or a fool, or naive. I hope you are in the second category and your claim is: science is not truth, but knowledge that is currently true, until proven otherwise! (And I don't want to add some testimonies about Drs who bought their doctorates!! Personal testimonies! (And I didn't consult with them) I will only mention the studies of Dr. Gabi Avital who was the chief scientist of the Ministry of Education after many years in the Air Force, and was fired from the Ministry of Education due to His opinions, which proved that there is no dawn for global warming, and the hand is tilted.
That's why I have to tell you about myself that once I stopped (and I drink once in a...) many unpleasant things also stopped and many of my friends did the same.
So FYI real testimony is more admissible than a scientific journal that is divided into chapters.
May you and all the good Jews have a long life.
And thanks for the article
Let's just say that if it's a theory that another truth finder advocates, I take it with a grain of salt, and since the scientific journals hold otherwise, I support them. Hint - they are promoting Avni's book there. The arguments of downloading studies from the Internet are also a classic example of the way a conspiracy theory works.
For the same reason I am in an argument with the "Daily Capitalist" people at NRG who have warmly embraced the conspiracy theories that there is no warming.
There is science - the one found in the scientific journals. Beware of imitations.
Since the publication of this commercial article, a lot of milk has passed through the blood vessels and not a little of it gets stuck there. A study on milk from 60 years ago is irrelevant, and ask Blizovsky why he did not cite studies that show a clear and one-way connection [Yarkona] between drinking homogenized milk and increasing mortality from aneurysms, as a result of ossification the arteries The fermentation process breaks the milk into molecular particles that the digestive system does not know how to break down, and because of their small size they pass into the arteries and there again, no one will agree to take them and they sink to the sides. Since we are at the end of 2010, I don't know if it will pass, but I wouldn't trust Blizovsky even to fix a flat tire. This is a dangerous deception and the milk lobby is making sure to root it out. Even articles that explained the risk and the increase in mortality in countries that switched to protection have disappeared from the Internet, and this certainly shows an impressive power of the manufacturers.
Thank you Dr. Wesk.
Dr. Itzhaki tries to explain to the naturopath with excessive pride what HCL acid is in the stomach...
We are having a respectful discussion here and are not defying anyone.
The China Research book published by Focus (can also be purchased at a sale of NIS 29 at bookstores) easily summarizes the wide-ranging epidemiological study of its kind in human history in which Prof. Campbell (one of the best known and respected in his field in the entire world) states that the milk protein 'casein' is one of the causes of morbidity The most serious for a person.
It is true, milk plays a significant role in the development of mammals, for a very limited time and from a very specific source and without human intervention with marketing tools such as hormones, antibiotics.
Maimonides was good at describing "that good" milk as a factor that heals the mucous membranes of the lungs, but not as a substance for regular consumption.
Dr. Avni, a pioneer doctor of stature who stands up against entire systems, speaks from decades of experience as a surgeon.
Just don't believe any of us, and try yourself to abstain from milk and its products for a month, and your body will tell you the story :-).
For normal development, try to use the netted sage seed oil, which will help absorb calcium from its plant source by tens of percent.
Regards and health
You are so funny, all the time I hear the claim "not based on reliable scientific studies", a person who studies for several decades and becomes a doctor makes him a moral person whose whole thought is "the public good", who decided that such a person is a source Trustworthy to wisdom.? , what kind of person can't be bribed or blackmailed into writing things in favor of some product? , and another thing, what a doctor or anyone with another degree learns does not mean that it is actually based on the truth, for example it is known that in the Middle Ages anyone who opposed the Church's belief system was considered an apostate and people really believed and perceived the priests of the religion as a reliable and qualified source, it was simply a definite fact that their opinion It is the truth as today this whole idea has become the leaders of science and their credibility - no one disputes their opinion = they are the authoritative source of the truth and it is forbidden to disagree with them, most people do not believe in the conspiracies part because they are simply innocent and they think that just as they would not want to hurt anyone so do the people At the edge of the pyramid, but the truth is that the way of thinking there is completely opposite to the minds of the common people... Call me paranoid, but it is known that government slaughters, and absolute government will absolutely corrupt... You are welcome to hit me in the comments and go back to the shell, if I managed to open someone's mind, that is already progress !
My washing stopped because I was asked by my wife to turn off the computer.
Your mother, I am sorry.
A number of facts: the greatest possibility of life here in Japan and China - there is no milk in the food.
Prevalence of heart disease and fatal heart attacks 1:17 (!) in Japanese men compared to Americans. Japanese people who move to the US report suffering from the same disease as the Americans only two years after their stay in the US (genetics?).
In the last 50 years there has been an accelerated increase in metabolic syndrome, Crohn's disease, asthma, autism, all types of cancer, schizophrenia, Alzheimer's, dementia and Parkinson's and more.
PS The current discussion began reporting on a 65-year study. None of us read the study. The most impressive point in it - 65 years. I'm not a big fan of studies that are done by divided teams, initial goals and working methods later are not clear. To be skeptical about the quality of research is, in my opinion, a better quality in any Bible, especially in research whose dangers may affect industries worth billions of dollars.
I heard an idea with Dr. Yair Avni, an avowed opponent of a dairy diet, for TV Channel 2.
He said that 20 days, a considerable time for TV. He talked about various and odd food products, some of them really insignificant. He didn't say a word about the milk! I don't believe in readings. It is clear that a discussion of an issue will not motivate Channel 2 to talk about advertisements by Strauss, Tnuva, etc
Our freedom of speech is not limited by the Prime Minister or the secret services. But they are always limited to level 0 by money. And human life in our country, as well as in the great USA, is relatively small money.
I came to the site through a friend's recommendation and really enjoy getting to know people who like to think.
The topic of milk is close to my heart and I admit that I recently changed my attitude about it and a few weeks ago I abstained from dairy products completely. From a scientific point of view, it is more likely that milk is one of the most harmful ingredients in the diet and one of the main causes of the serious process of the world's deterioration to many severe diseases, including "metabolic syndrome". For those who like to base their opinion on reading research literature, I recommend "The China Study" written by Colin Campbell, a professor of biochemistry in the number of Onb4resitats of the USA. The methods of his research and the way of developing very creative and witty studies.
The honorable Mr. Shaked.
Only calcium in an acidic environment will be in an ionic state and can be absorbed through our digestive system. For your information, all the food we consume passes through the stomach where the acidity is greater than the acidity of dairy products. The stomach produces hydrochloric acid whose role is to enable the digestion of proteins by relevant enzymes. The lactic acid helps the stomach to produce the acid needed to digest proteins.
It's a shame that you express an expert opinion when on the face of it it seems that you are not one, at least in the field of biochemistry and food.
All the best to you and enjoy the beautiful seas.
The basic disadvantage of the Internet is the possibility of anyone, whoever he is and with his personal baggage, to express an opinion on any subject just because it is possible. The surfers will do themselves a favor and refrain from their reactions and certainly one should not rely on all the people with a negative obsession who write delusional books about 3k in order to trash the layman whose background tends to hypochondria.
Milk is a basic food. Milk contains important components for human development. See what happened when parents were tempted by herbal formulations in milk formulas and lost their children (Remedia case). The panic-and-run method is important for you to pass from the world. Why do you drive cars after all there are road benefits and people get killed.
Be serious. Milk is a good thing and it is tested.
The writer is an expert on dairy issues.
And it's a good thing, we have enough other professionals who deal with something that doesn't exist and get attached to the salary of doctors and professors.
I hope you are not one of the cynics, because today, happily, there is no one who does not know what a naturopath is.
In any case, the profession can be studied at any college that respects itself in the fields of complementary healing in the world as well as in Israel.
The studies include a wide variety of mandatory and intensive courses of a total of 4 years as a basis.
In Europe, the USA, Canada and other countries, the profession is recognized, unlike the State of Israel, which still does not approve the studies as academic, but as diploma studies.
almond cedar,
What is an ND Naturopath and how do you obtain such a degree?
How many years of study does the profession include and where do you study it?
Hello worried and witty friends alike...
I casually read all the correspondences and my soul longed to express a minor position, although it is based on a source no less good than those mentioned here - Maimonides (the one who is crowned today in many universities as Professor Maimonides - in contrast to thousands of differences).
Maimonides definitely categorizes the types of milk according to their benefits for humans and says that cow's milk is very good for lung patients, and for nourishing the body in general, and treats it as good medicine.
We understand that medicine is not consumed for daily use.
Unfortunately for us today, the milk is not at all similar to the milk that Rambam talks about or the milk with which our country was blessed, and the industry has put its dirty hand on the benefits inherent in it, and not only has its quality been disrupted, but it has also become problematic, devoid of wholesome quality and saturated with backward quality.
Milk is not an available source of calcium due to high acidity levels in it and in all animal products, as well as phosphorus levels that compete with and prevent its absorption in our bodies.
So for a personal summary I would say, the milk is good, the industrial milk is bad, and you did as you wished
After all, dairy products today are the tastiest thing there is, and our lust definitely affects our decisions.
By the way, as someone who knows Dr. Avni personally, I would praise him and claim that he is an honest person with rare standards.
For health
pretty girl:
Lactose intolerance among adults is a very common phenomenon.
Genetic studies show that the tolerance to lactose in old age is a genetic development from the past thousands of years - a development that originates from the domestication of cattle and the fact that in environments where milk was available, people who are able to digest lactose could get the necessary ingredients for their nutrition more easily than those who could not.
Humans went through almost the entire process of their development without tolerance to lactose and even today, as mentioned, many of them lose the ability to digest lactose after the age of breastfeeding.
Therefore, all that needs to be done is to avoid lactose and rely on substitutes.
You can find more details, for example, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactose_intolerance
What emerges from all the studies is the simple fact that they can pump us anything they want and we will believe it. My son, now 14 years old, grew up on milk and its products. Until the age of 5 we lived in France, both there and here he was fed mainly on delicacies, chocolate and drinking milk. It can be said that apart from milk and water he didn't drink any other drinks, he didn't particularly like meat and vegetable products. Until about three years ago he began to feel severe stomach pains. We conducted all the possible tests on him and everything was normal, including a gastroscopy and a colonoscopy, and finally with a small breath we found out that he had developed intolerance to lactose (milk sugar). He can eat most dairy products except whole milk (including chocolate). This problem can be solved if he takes lactose pills when he wants to drink milk or chocolate. It was really a problem because he had to stop eating cereal in the morning which was especially difficult for him and besides what do you give the child to drink in the morning??? In the end we found the soy milk and the problem was partially solved. What is upsetting is that a medical problem of this kind is not recognized by the Ministry of Health, so the burden of purchasing the lactose and the special milk falls on the patient.
The obvious question as a result of the article is, despite the reduction in the amount of milk he consumes, compared to the amounts he consumed in the past, could it harm him in the future, health-wise???
And another white thing without a name:
Regarding the pain in the nipples - if you read between the lines as you claim to do, you would see that the fact that it is a diagnosis by a doctor who said this because she has already encountered the phenomenon appears in the lines themselves.
To Mr. "Michael Rothschild"
You do not have a name?
Are you unable to come up with a nickname that will allow you to be addressed normally?
The truth is that I get the impression that it is not because it seems to me that your whole intention is to impose your worldview on us and not get a response.
Yes.
I read the links.
A lot is written there thanks to soy and I also said that I eat soy myself, but there are also some things written there that contradict your claims as my personal experience contradicts them.
So please - since I did not say that soy is a bad thing, but only said that your response is inaccurate - do not try to rewrite history by responding to things that have not been claimed.
The research was conducted for 65 years and no amount of glossing over the matter will help you.
Most of the funding invested in it was invested during these 65 years when the financiers could not derive any benefit from it.
Instead of pointing out the work relationships (and perhaps in the future the family relationships) of the person who wrote the research summary, you are invited to point out any mistake in his words.
If you can't do that you should just shut up.
I saw that there are many more responses that I have to address - mainly in relation to my article that appeared - it turns out - tonight - but at the moment I have guests coming and tonight I intend to participate in a demonstration against homophobia so it will take some time before I respond - so be patient.
Say, do you read the links you give?
The link you gave actually sails in the health benefits of soy. It is mentioned there that breast cancer patients are advised not to consume soy. For almost any food item, I can find you diseases in which it is recommended not to consume it, it has no meaning for the general public for whom soy actually protects against many types of cancer.
This is one of the advertising tricks that the meat and dairy companies resort to - they take an article that refers to unusual nutritional recommendations intended for people with a certain health condition and publish it as if it is relevant to the general public.
And I almost forgot, even if you are a rat, you are advised not to eat soy. We are also not recommended to eat everything that rats eat.
I wasn't talking about any conspiracy theories. Commercial sponsorship for academic research is an accepted and known thing. As someone who has been engaged in academic research for many years, believe me I know how much an academic researcher depends on budgets that come mainly from stakeholders. Even in this case, the institute headed by the author of the article does not hide its goals for the promotion of milk.
The study did not last 65 years. This is a new study that used data from 65 years ago. The author of the article from the Milk Research Institute is solely responsible for analyzing the data, such as negating misleading statistical effects.
It is very easy for someone with an interest to write such an article that proves what he (or one of them) wants. In the period in question, high milk consumption was not related to nutritional preferences, but mainly to socioeconomic status, which was also expressed in the consumption of other food items such as fruits and vegetables, in hygienic conditions and accessibility to medical services. It is clear that this population is expected to have a longer lifespan regardless of milk consumption. An objective researcher will try to weigh the various statistical effects. A researcher who has set his goal in advance, will not do this.
Another way to present misleading data is to present a study on a group of statistically insignificant size, such as a "study" on a single person who suffered from sore nipples. In your "research" did you use a control group where you checked after how long it took for people who continued to eat soy?
Just to complete the picture:
I do not abstain from soy. It is still an important component of my diet. I just stopped exaggerating.
To the reader between the lines who opposes the spirit of Dawkins:
You exaggerate your penchant for conspiracy theories.
Should I repeat and mention once more what I have already said and what appears in the article itself regarding the fact that the research has been going on for 65 years?
Isn't it clear to you that this shatters the conspiracy idea?
And in relation to the health effects of soy - here are a few things:
One is what Wikipedia says:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soybean#Health_risks
The second is my personal experience: I have been a vegetarian for many years and for a certain period I relied on soy as the main source of proteins.
At some point I started to feel pain in my nipples - the kind of pain that teenage boys sometimes feel.
My wife, who is a doctor, guessed that it was due to the effect of phytoestrogens in soy and suggested that I reduce my soy consumption.
I did this and instead of eating soy schnitzel after a workout - I started drinking a liter of satiety.
The problem is gone.
On the one hand you talk about serious studies and on the other hand you mention the nonsense about "hormones in soy milk". This nonsense is not mentioned in any serious article but in the publications of the dairy and meat industries who were depressed by the decrease in sales in light of all the studies pointing to the health damages resulting from the consumption of animal food.
There are no estrogens in soy, but phytoestrogens, which are antioxidants that protect the body from cancer and other diseases. They do not have the action of estrogens, but they know how to be absorbed by the same estrogen receptors and prevent the absorption of estrogens. That is, not only does soy have no estrogens, but it also protects us from the estrogens that are found in abundance in animal foods, including milk.
The home page of the author of the study, Prof. Jan Givens, appears here:
http://www.reading.ac.uk/apd/staff/d-i-givens.aspx
Those who pay attention to the details will quickly realize that the same esteemed professor serves as the head of the Milk Research Institute, an institute that according to its website (http://www.apd.reading.ac.uk/Agriculture/ASRG/dairy.htm) is financed in cooperation with the industry and it is easy to understand from it that its main goal is to promote the business of the dairy industry.
An institute that states that its purpose is to research the health benefits of milk, decided on the results of the study even before the study, and this is how its studies should be treated.
Most of the claims of the opponents of milk are simply not based on serious and new medical scientific research, but mainly on claims that hang in the air.
In some cases, it is definitely a deliberate distortion (lie) that is probably intended to promote substitute products.
On the other hand, the claims of the supporters of drinking milk are supported by a very large amount of new scientific studies and by many leading and well-known doctors.
Note: I only rely on scientific studies and serious scientific publications.
Obviously, nothing is perfect, but this is the best and most reliable method to date.
Anyone who claims that all scientific studies lie is usually a fool or a liar.
I have nothing to argue with people who believe in all kinds of hidden powers and not in rational claims - this is faith and there is no point in arguing with faith.
Important note: The emphasis on new medical research is important because in the last 15 years there has been a great improvement and great care in the way scientific research is carried out and its results deciphered.
Quite a few studies that are older than 10 years were carried out using unreliable methods and were deciphered in bad ways.
Today there is great care in the way research is conducted and it is not possible to publish research without meeting these requirements, in the leading medical and scientific journals.
The following is a position paper of HIFA, the organization of pediatricians in Israel - consumption of milk and its products among infants, children and adults:
http://www.milk.org.il/info/health/life-style/nutrition/kids/nut-chd-001.htm
The document only reinforces the need for drinking milk and its consumption by children.
It is important to note that the document relies on sources that are almost all scientific medical studies from the last 5 years.
Below is a source that explains in non-professional language the lack of understanding regarding calcium absorption and refutes a large part of the claims on the subject:
http://www.milk.org.il/info/health/dairy/calcium/sidan_p12.pdf
It is important to note that this source relies on 35 sources, almost all of which are medical scientific studies from the last 10 years.
You can find a lot more information about the health contribution of milk and the relevant problems in a research-backed way here:
http://www.milk.org.il/info/health/dairy/raw_milk/cholestrol_fat.htm
Pay attention to the links on the right side of the page that lead to a lot of additional information.
I definitely agree that nutrition is a personal thing.
The medical studies on milk show that for most people cow's milk is good and has more advantages than disadvantages.
One of the problems is that quite a few of the people who stop drinking milk due to the whole campaign against milk, do not take care to supplement their diet appropriately. It's not easy because milk contains many important substances that you have to "work hard" to get from the animal - investing a lot in food (which many people are too lazy to do).
There will be those who claim that the milk producers pay for the studies and that everything is lies.
The reality shows otherwise.
For example: the World Health Organization conducted a huge study on the effect of drinking milk.
Really found a problem:
Found that milk causes more acne.
Below is a descriptive article for non-professionals:
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/1,7340,L-3105701,00.html
Important: No serious research has shown that milk causes phlegm or asthma. Anyone who claims there is such a study is a fool or a liar.
Regarding Dr. Aryeh Avni's book - "Leave My Theatins".
In most places he does not rely on studies or only relies on a few studies which are mostly old (more than 15 years ago).
In other chapters of the book he does not rely on research at all but simply makes claims that are not based on anything.
In short, drinking milk may make you cringe, but it has many very positive nutritional benefits that are difficult to supplement entirely from other sources.
A final note to finish: for all soy milk drinkers. I strongly suggest that you look for recently published information that soy contains substances similar to the female estrogen hormone.
The effects they found for this are not sympathetic to the best of my recollection.
halav magdil ta sikuim lahlot be sartan
Everyone says something different, I don't care and yogurts have always been the basis of my proteins...
What's more, I also always like to go to the yogurt section in the supermarket and wait until a child arrives, or some parent who just keeps an eye on the delicacies he might like and is sometimes disappointed that the parents don't exactly buy him something he wanted... it's a great time to take a box of gnomes and make a splash. Wicked to the baby that some of them have already had enough to cry that they are not given gnomes hahahaha
If I'm not mistaken, the wave that influenced the belief (yes, belief) that milk causes allergic symptoms came about 30 years ago from the United States, this is a very foreign concept to the Sabrs - the natives of the country advocated for the Torah infrastructure "Land of milk and honey". People who grew up on milk, Milk, and its products cannot be allergic to the term 'milk' which also symbolizes purity, whiteness and innocence. Unless someone has tipped them off that they are allergic to it.
In the studies of nutrition and vegetarianism, one of the concepts claims that sometimes a person becomes allergic precisely to the things he especially likes (a kind of paradox and perhaps degrees of proportionality-proportions without exaggerations). In principle, I believe that every person lives better and lives longer if he eats and is nourished by things that are good for his soul-mind : That is, the experience of pleasure involves this and he truly feels at peace with himself... so the studies that change in the Crimea to the Arabs are not exactly interesting if they shape the opinions of the others who are influenced by the spirits more than by the innate instinct in them as mammals,,ha,,ha (the Milky Way) .
And by the way, in all the countries I visited, I did not find milk and its products as good and tasty as those found in Israel, even our reverse coffee, rich in real milk, is better than any coffee you drink in Europe.
But, who is able to interfere with the 'belief' of others? He who believes that something is harmful to him, his whole system goes into defense because of this belief, and the one who thinks or believes that something is good for him, his whole system is open to receiving and digesting that food as a 'blessing'.
But, it is possible that the increased industrialization of the dairy industry in all the last decades, the artificial hormone supplements that were added to the cows, to the milk and its contents are the ones that caused side effects and allergic effects of various kinds:
In my opinion, the industrial competition only kills the best that gives a real yield, if we had raised our hands and not participated in any unnecessary competition we would have won, from the very fact that we are what we are enough to be us/simple, matter-of-fact, true and real.
come on. Those born then usually also breastfed, because there were no substitutes yet. And so he had a solid base of breast milk to start life with.
The food was then also free of chemicals and hormones.
And because of the war, people also ate less.
less meat. Less fats, and certainly less sweets.
So they drank milk, but maybe you should also check what they didn't drink or eat.
Who is funding these diabolical studies?
Arnon:
If you have no idea what I'm talking about then maybe I should clarify the obvious.
You wrote your words in response to an article describing a study that has been going on since 1937 in which the researchers came to the conclusion that milk is beneficial.
The fact that they put an advertisement in milk is a trivial fact that has nothing to do with it. There is also an advertisement for all the other products and there is even an advertisement against drunk driving.
All this does not belong in the article.
Since you wrote your words in response to the article - it was logical to assume that you were referring to it.
Michael, I have no idea what you are talking about.
Here in Israel there are advertisements to drink milk all the time, or did you not notice?
Why are they worth nothing, take for example the issue of calcium:
Everyone knows that dairy products contain calcium and that calcium is good for the body.
What you are not told is that the body does not absorb this calcium at all!
I have a precise explanation but those who don't believe won't believe even given the explanation so why bother.
It's not far from all the nonsense they show us in shampoo commercials.
Avi,
1. Don't look at the jar but at what's in it.
2. If you were the editor of Yedioth-Ahronoth, do you think you would be able to withstand the pressure of this lobby and be able to publish an article that would harm this market that generates billions?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMGIbOGu8q0
Arnon:
You overdo it!
An advertisement that has been worked on since 1937?!
After all, none of the research initiators can benefit from the advertisement!
Some people only have conspiracies in their heads.
Arnon, this is a homeopath, so one should suspect his intentions.
https://www.hayadan.org.il/homeopathics-in-doughbt-270605/
If he were right, the information should not have been underground but published in the scientific press.
See also "Leave my nipples"
http://www.heartcenter.co.il/siteArticle.asp?aid=379&cid=49
Girl, wake up!!!!!
Milk is not healthy for 1001 reasons.
The Dairy Council invests millions!!! In an advertisement to encourage milk consumption and people treat it as if every advertisement is at least an academic article.
I also consume dairy products but in moderation, just like pizza.
It must be remembered that a significant part of the childhood of children born in the thirties was during the Second World War.
I read about a similar study (unfortunately I can't remember where), which examined the health of the people who grew up at that time. The same study confirmed the fact presented here, of good health status for those people. The study attributed this to an increased consumption of fruits and vegetables and on the other hand to a decrease in meat consumption, which was caused by the shortage during the war. The slaves of this study seem to me to be an intervening variable for the research in the article, since the good health of those people can be attributed to a decrease in the consumption of animal products and not necessarily to an increase in the consumption of milk.
First, you need to check who funded the research and secondly, the milk of the XNUMXs did not contain hormones and antibiotics
And not similar to the milk of 2009
Is there a study regarding children who devoured yellow cheese in the form of pizzas and toasts?
I thought about him too. It will be interesting to see his reaction.
I wonder what Dr. Avni, who wrote the book, would say about this:
"The Milk Whips".