arteriosclerosis the real cause.

Belfast

Milk – Hazard or Cure?

Scientist Robert Anderson exposes a myth behind New Zealand’s favourite health food.

Is anything more aggravating than buying what you understand to be organic food only to discover that it is not organic and that industry has, once again, “meddled” with it?
My wife returned from a supermarket recently having purchased a bottle of “Simply Organic” milk. On reading the label more closely we found it was nothing of the sort. In the fine print we read that, as well as being pasteurised, this so called “organic milk” was also homogenised.
But, you ask, “homogenising was developed for the benefit of consumers, surely?” Not true. Homogenising was developed to reduce the fat particles to such a fine extent they no longer separate out, so that the milk lasts longer on the shelf. It is only one of many processes food is now subjected to entirely for commercial purposes. Consumers have to contend with foods being irradiated, genetically engineered, homogenised and processed using any other novel method that will benefit the corporations producing it. Homogenising extends milk shelf-life to 11 days or so. It has no beneficial food value; in fact, the very opposite.
According to government statistics, 50 percent of New Zealanders die from heart disease, 25 percent from cancer and five percent from diabetes. Now, it seems, homogenised milk may be a leading contributor.
Dr Kurt Oster, head of cardiology in Connecticut, has been researching and gathering evidence about homogenised milk for over 20 years. This questionable process began being introduced by dairy companies as far back as 1932. Most of the milk consumed in the US is now homogenised. Dr Oster’s findings conclusively show that in the process of extending shelf life and stopping the cream separating out of milk, medicine has a clear culprit for increased arteriosclerosis. Dr Oster’s findings link the formation of the plaque which clogs arteries directly to ingesting homogenised milk.
According to Dr Oster, with Dr Donald Ross of Fairfield University and Dr John Zikakis of the University of Delaware, homogenising allows the enzyme xanthine oxidase (XO) to pass intact into the blood stream. There it attacks the plasmologen tissue of the artery walls and parts of the heart muscle. This causes lesions that the body tries to heal by laying down a protective layer of cholesterol. The end result is scar tissue and calcified plaques with a build-up of cholesterol and other fatty deposits. We call these arteriosclerosis and atherosclerosis. According to these experts, dietary cholesterol is not the main cause of heart attacks; it is homogenised milk.
Finns consume about 272kg of milk each per year; 90 percent is homogenised, meaning 245kg of homogenised milk per Finn per year.
Swedes drink about 60 percent as much milk, but only two percent of it is homogenised (only 4.9kg per year). The heart attack death rate in Finland is more than three times the Swedish level (about 245/100,000 compared with only 75/100,000). These statistics should serve to warn us that something is seriously wrong.
Homogenisation could also be one of the major reasons for allergies to milk. As Dr Oski said in the finish of his disturbing book, Don’t Drink Your Milk,4 “Milk has no valid claim as the perfect food. As nutrition, it produces allergies in infants, diarrhoea and cramps in the older child and adult, and may be a factor in the development of heart attacks and strokes.”

Fragmenting the fats – how it works
When milk is not homogenised two important constituents – Xanthine oxidase (XO) and the cream – are digested first in our stomachs and then in the small intestine. These digested components are then metabolised normally by our body. According to Dr Oster’s studies, homogenising allows a large portion of the XO and fat molecules to pass straight into the bloodstream unaltered.
Homogenisation forces the milk under extreme pressure, through tiny holes. This breaks up the normally large fat particles into tiny ones and forces the fat to form tiny molecular clusters, thus ensuring that the molecules do not regroup and form a cream layer on top of the milk. Instead, in this denatured state, they stay suspended in the milk. However, not only do they not regroup, the process also makes digestion almost impossible. The tiny molecules enter the bloodstream directly as undigested fat – not exactly the best for human health.
Xanthine oxidase has a very specific function in our bodies. It breaks down purine compounds into uric acid, which is a waste product. The liver of several animals, including humans, contains Xanthine oxidase specifically for this purpose.
However, as Dr Oster said, “When foreign XO, such as that from cow’s milk, enters the bloodstream it causes havoc by attacking specific targets within the artery walls.” The “specific target” which Dr Oster refers to, as mentioned earlier, is the plasmologen tissue making up the artery cell walls. Plasmologen is vital as it holds together the cell membranes within the artery walls. Any damage from foreign Xanthine oxidase causes lesions to the artery walls. The body, in its efforts to protect and repair them, immediately responds by “patching” the damage with calcified plaque. In the later stages of arteriosclerosis and atherosclerosis, arteries lose their elasticity as additional calcium is deposited. Calcification of the arteries can contribute to high blood pressure which is actually not a disease by itself, merely a symptom. It has been found in some samples that plasmologen was missing in artery wall lesions and plaques. The mystery was solved when researchers found XO in the plaques. The two substances cannot co-exist.

So what should we do?
Firstly, we must minimise non-preferred fats in the diet. Preferred fats include fish oils and seafood oils, evening primrose oil, flaxseed oil, olive oil, and small amounts of butter. Non-preferred fats include homogenised milk fats, processed oils, margarine and excess animal fat. The use of trans-fatty acids (bad fats) potentially results in deterioration of cell membranes and a degradation of the immune system.
If you still opt to drink milk, make sure that you carefully read the label on your next bottle. Homogenised is not organic!



References:
1. People in the US and Scandinavian countries consume more dairy products than anywhere else in the world, yet they have the highest rates of osteoporosis (Clin Ortho Related Res, 152; 35, 1980). This fact emphasises the threat of excessive protein in the diet and suggest that dairy products offer no protection against osteoporosis, probably due to the high protein content of milk (Am J Clin Nutr, 41; 254, 1985).
2. All cows’ milk in New Zealand contains the A1 beta-casein protein and this has been shown recently to increase rates of heart disease and childhood diabetes. Diabetes, heart risk linked to NZ milk, 24.01.2003, NZ Herald. Original article see Jan issue New Zealand Medical Journal.
3. Healthview Newsletter, Virginia, Spring 1978.
4. Published by Mollica Press.

Bob Anderson is a former lecturer in Chemistry, Physics, Lab Technology and Nuclear Medicine, and holds an honours degree in Chemistry and Physics from the University of Birmingham, and PhD in Science Education. Since retiring he has worked as a member of PSRG, publicising issues surrounding GE.

Opinions or findings are those of the author and are not necessarily those of the publisher or its agents.

http://www.soil-health.org.nz/pastissues/marapr03/milk.htm

DrIndy

An interesting article indeed - is it the main contributor though or a component?

Opinions?

John

Component, nothing is ever that simple. But yes, a very interesting article indeed.

Can you even buy un-homogenised milk here? I've had it in Germany and it's actually nicer in your tea but not very appetising looking (huge globules of fat floating on the top).

DrIndy

Milk is homogenised to allow people to enjoy the flavour of full fat milk without the cream collecting at the top of the carton.

I don't drink milk.

John

DrIndy wrote:

Milk is homogenised to allow people to enjoy the flavour of full fat milk without the cream collecting at the top of the carton.

I don't drink milk.

I didn't mean cream floating at the top, that's what made it taste nicer in my opinion. I meant an actual oily globule like when you drop a bit of olive oil in water.

DrIndy

You sure the cup was properly washed before you got it?!?!

John

Yes as it happened every time and I washed my own cup most of the time.

Wibbs

Interesting article indeed. I remember reading of a chap(doctor IIRC) who also found a link between heart disease and chlorine in water supplies. His evidence seemed pretty good and he even had the EPA in the US involved at one time. One of his experiments involved chickens. One group had chlorinated water, while the other had distilled water. The differences between the two groups after only a few months was marked. The chlorinated chickens had all the symptoms of advanced atherosclerosis.

I also remember reading about another bloke who studied long lived peoples around the world and he found that unlike what we're currently advised they ate quite a lot of saturated animal fats. The Maasai were one example. They survived almost exclusively on animal fats and showed little evidence of heart disease. However many of their tribal neighbours that had a more "healthy" vegatable and grain based diet had much higher rates of heart disease. The Inuit show a similar pattern. They have a traditional diet of high animal fat/protein intake(they make the atkins diet look like it's not really trying). They have very low levels of heart disease. When they adopt a more western diet(even a "healthy" one) their heart disease/cancer/diabetes rates go through the roof.

My personal suspicion is that cholesterol as a culprit in heart disease is way too simple an answer. The article itself suggests that cholesterol is laid down as a protective response to existing damage. It's almost like suggesting that just because you tend to find ambulances at car crashes, ambulances may be the cause of the car crash in the first place.

Given that most of our cholesterol is made by the liver and very little directly from the food we eat, I see no reason to not keep eating eggs etc. As a species we evolved to eat animal based food, nuts, berries, fruit and some vegetables. We certainly did not evolve to eat grains for a start, as they need to be processed to make them edible. A process that is relatively recent in our evolutionary history.

Myself I avoid chlorine as much as I can, milk(unless straight from a cow/goat) and avoid most veg fats as much as possible. The latter is difficult to do. Try buying bread that doesn't contain hydrogenated veggie oil(trans fats). The so called "health" foods can also be full of the stuff. As was pointed out, unless you know a farmer, non-homogenised milk is very difficult to get(tastes way nicer too).

DrIndy

There is a strong genetic influence to high cholesterol. although the classical familial variety of familial hypercholesterolaemia (which is one of the commonest genetic diseases in the world) predisposes people at a young age to heart attacks - there are dietary variables.

Dietary factors have not been very strongly proven to be a cause, probably because it is difficult to ensure all the participants of the trial stick rigidly to the diet prescribed.

Heart disease is a BIG problem though and a growing epidemic.

The chlorinated water is an interesting viewpoint - an important component of plaque formation is free radicals which is why smokers are more likely to have heart attacks - because of the free radicals inhaled. Likewise, it is possible that chlorinated water predisposes to free radicals. I would be interested in reading this paper, if you can find the reference.

John

Wibbs wrote:

Given that most of our cholesterol is made by the liver and very little directly from the food we eat, I see no reason to not keep eating eggs etc. As a species we evolved to eat animal based food, nuts, berries, fruit and some vegetables. We certainly did not evolve to eat grains for a start, as they need to be processed to make them edible. A process that is relatively recent in our evolutionary history.

Whilst I get your point about our evolutionary diet, bear in mind that prior to farming people ate a lot less as having to catch your food and forage for the rest took so much time. Some days you'd get a couple of good meals, others you'd have a handful of berries. Because of that evolution has selected for a metabolism to sequester as much useful material from those foods as possible. So if you eat lots of cholesterol rich food your body will take up more than it needs. Not all of this can be used for its proper functions (you can only make so much steroid hormones before endocrine regulation kicks in) or it can be overused in its proper function (modulating cell membrane fluidity, cell membranes need to be somewhat fluid to allow proper cell functioning, cholesterol wedges itself into the lipid part of the plasma membrane and causes the membrane to become stiff). A low cholesterol diet does work to reduce heart disease and whatnot. Low cholesterol diets are also linked with better neurological health in later stages of life.

geraghd

Well everyone knows artherioscelerosis is caused by Chlamydia :rolleyes:...

But:

Consumers have to contend with foods being irradiated, genetically engineered, homogenised and processed using any other novel method that will benefit the corporations producing it. Homogenising extends milk shelf-life to 11 days or so. It has no beneficial food value; in fact, the very opposite.

The Corporations do this as it also benefits consumers...

Wibbs

The corporations do it as it increases sales. That may be as a result of helping the consumer, or it might not. In this example it helps make the product as the name suggests, homogenised. People want a consistent product that looks and tastes the same week in week out. Whether this is healthier than the original natural product is the question. I think most will contend that it's not, as most processing removes nutrients from the original food due to heat action etc. Every day we hear doctors and nutritionists telling us to reduce the amount of processed food in our diets. How is processed milk any different?

I seem to remember that in one study scientists tried to feed calves on bottled milk and they all died. Sorry if I can't post a link or further info on that one, but I do remember something along those lines. Now if that's the case, that a substance designed to feed calves instead kills them through undernourishment, what is it doing for us?

Wibbs

John2 wrote:

Whilst I get your point about our evolutionary diet, bear in mind that prior to farming people ate a lot less as having to catch your food and forage for the rest took so much time. Some days you'd get a couple of good meals, others you'd have a handful of berries.

I take your point, but many studies have found that hunter gatherers can have a more varied and consistent diet than agrarian types. Obviously they eat less, but the same could be said of the generations before us. Also they have found that hunter gatherers may have more time on their hands as the collection of food wasn't as labour intensive as many believe(would depend on the envirnoment naturally).

A low cholesterol diet does work to reduce heart disease and whatnot. Low cholesterol diets are also linked with better neurological health in later stages of life.

Yes there are those links, but how can one explain those peoples around the world with very high cholesterol diets that don't show the degradation we see in the west. I just suspect there is something(s) else that is possibly acting as a catalyst.

Belfast

DrIndy wrote:

Milk is homogenised to allow people to enjoy the flavour of full fat milk without the cream collecting at the top of the carton.

I don't drink milk.

The reason milk is homogenised is to increase the shelf life from 3 days to 11 days. It is of no direct help to the comsumer.

geraghd

Belfast wrote:

The reason milk is homogenised is to increase the shelf life from 3 days to 11 days. It is of no direct help to the comsumer.

What might the indirect help then be? Or do you contend that the corporations do it merely for themselves and that benefits to a corporation are entirely distinct from the consumers?

John

Surely a longer shelf life helps the consumer indirectly that you can buy enough milk to last a week in one shopping trip.

Wibbs wrote:

I take your point, but many studies have found that hunter gatherers can have a more varied and consistent diet than agrarian types. Obviously they eat less, but the same could be said of the generations before us. Also they have found that hunter gatherers may have more time on their hands as the collection of food wasn't as labour intensive as many believe(would depend on the envirnoment naturally).

But look at hunter-gatherer societies, they tend to be small societies. I can't remember the exact figures but to feed one family by a hunter-gathering lifestyle you need an area of land several times larger than the area needed for farming. You can't expect modern society to go back to hunting and gathering (and spread out over the entire earth). Hunter-gatherers may have a more varied and consistant diet but that doesn't mean it's better. The average age of individuals is much lower.

Yes there are those links, but how can one explain those peoples around the world with very high cholesterol diets that don't show the degradation we see in the west. I just suspect there is something(s) else that is possibly acting as a catalyst.

I haven't seen any reports that say that societies with high cholesterol diets with low rates of neurodegenerative diseases anywhere. Whilst cholesterol is not the only causative factor it is highly correlated with neurodegenerative diseases. Many other factors are also correlated (such as free radicals, environmental factors, genetics) but high cholesterol is bad for your brain.

Wibbs

John2 wrote:

But look at hunter-gatherer societies, they tend to be small societies. I can't remember the exact figures but to feed one family by a hunter-gathering lifestyle you need an area of land several times larger than the area needed for farming. You can't expect modern society to go back to hunting and gathering (and spread out over the entire earth).

Very true, but I didn't mean we go back to the past. Sod that, I like my wide screen TV too much. What I was just suggesting is that we go back to a dietary regime more suited to the evolution of our species. Since we are, as a species, hunter gatherers, it makes sense to follow those kind of diets for optimum health.

Hunter-gatherers may have a more varied and consistant diet but that doesn't mean it's better.

Huh? I thought varied and consistant was the mantra of dieticians?

The average age of individuals is much lower.

The average age of death stats are lower, but that doesn't take into account childhood mortality. In any event most of those who don't make it to old age, would die from infections and injury rather than the degenerative diseases that plague us in the west. If you can find a hunter gatherer with type 2 diabetes, I'm sure there's a prize. . In fact you could argue that the increase in life expectancy in the west is largely due to a comparative freedom from infectious diseases due to antibiotics/immunisation. While there have been inroads into the treatment of degenerative diseases, it's nothing like the inroads into preventing and treating infectious disease.

I haven't seen any reports that say that societies with high cholesterol diets with low rates of neurodegenerative diseases anywhere. Whilst cholesterol is not the only causative factor it is highly correlated with neurodegenerative diseases. Many other factors are also correlated (such as free radicals, environmental factors, genetics) but high cholesterol is bad for your brain.

Well this is a quicky Google but here you go.
http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-cooked/raw-cooked-3h.shtml
From the same site
http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-8b.shtml
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/73/2/353

Not a lot there, but it does back up the assertion that hunter gatherer types suffer from few of the degenerative diseases that are so common in the west. Their overall fitness level is also a biggie. My father lived in Africa for a few years back in the 50's and was friendly with a few doctors and he/they were very impressed with how strong and fit the tribal lads were. One of them told him it was quite rare to find cancer among even the elderly of those "primitive" societies and this chap was a cancer specialist. He was apparently doing a study into just that. I wonder where his research ever led?

Belfast

geraghd wrote:

What might the indirect help then be? Or do you contend that the corporations do it merely for themselves and that benefits to a corporation are entirely distinct from the consumers?

It has a long self life so less goes to waste.