Milk consumption is a risk factor for prostate cancer in Western countries: evidence from cohort studies.
Abstract
We have previously found a positive association between milk consumption and prostate cancer risk using meta-analysis to analyze published case-control studies. In the present study, further meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the summary relative risk (RR) between the consumption of milk and dairy products and prostate cancer from cohort studies published between 1966- 2006. We found 18 relevant articles and 13 independent studies were available for our analysis. The summary RR was 1.13 (95% confidence interval = 1.02-1.24) when comparing the highest with the lowest quantile of consumption. The summary RRs by study stratification showed a positive association. A dose-response relationship was identified when combining the studies that partitioned the consumption by quintiles. We also evaluated the effects of some limitations, such as dairy classification, prostate cancer stages and publication bias, in the present study. These findings, together with the previous study, suggest that the consumption of milk and dairy products increases the risk of prostate cancer. This is biologically plausible since milk contains considerable amounts of fat, hormones, and calcium that are associated with prostate cancer risk.
Not likely for two reasons. Kefir is generally made with organic milk, which would have considerably less estrogen to begin with. Secondly, the bacteria in kefir are well known for breaking down estrogen metabolites, so they are likely to break down actual estrogens in the process of fermentation.
Yes, eggs also contain hormones. But again, they can be consumed in limited quantities.
[/Quote]
Is it alright for a cancer patient to eat two eggs a day or is that too much? What is your recommendation for egg consumption?
A couple of eggs a day is not a problem. Especially if the diet contains a lot of plants since the plants contain phytoestrogens that antagonize estrogens.
Thanks, Hv! I'll recommend two RAW eggs daily for my aunt who has breast cancer. I guess raw eggs are better than cooked because the nutrients are preserved. And she will take only the egg yolk, not the white, as the white has very little nutrients.
Thanks, Hv! I'll recommend two RAW eggs daily for my aunt who has breast cancer. I guess raw eggs are better than cooked because the nutrients are preserved.
Raw eggs though can also be contaminated with salmonella. Originally it was thought the bacteria could only be found on the shell, but it was since shown that the bacteria can also get in to the inner egg during egg development.
And she will take only the egg yolk, not the white, as the white has very little nutrients.
Raw eggs though can also be contaminated with salmonella. Originally it was thought the bacteria could only be found on the shell, but it was since shown that the bacteria can also get in to the inner egg during egg development.
The salmonella issue is overblown. A study by the USDA in 2002 indicates that only 2.3 million out of 69 billion eggs produced annually are contaminated with salmonella. Thus, only 0.003% or 1 in 30,000 eggs is infected. Based on these numbers, the average person would come across a contaminated egg only once in 42 years. And even then, if the person is healthy, salmonella is no big deal. It is generally a benign self-limiting illness in healthy people. They may feel sick for a day or two, but this infection is easily treated by taking high quality probiotics. You can reduce the risk of salmonella further by buying only high quality eggs produced by healthy, cage-free, organically fed chickens. This according to:
And she will take only the egg yolk, not the white, as the white has very little nutrients.
The whites are a good protein source.
[/Quote]
The white has slightly more protein and much more magnesium, potassium, and sodium than the yolk. But for all other nutrients such as vitamins A, D, E and K, the yolk has overwhelmingly more. The problem with the white is that it contains avidin, which binds biotin and prevents its absorption, putting you at risk of a biotin deficiency.
Some people believe that there is more than enough biotin in the yolk to offset the bind-up losses due to avadin. This belief is a fallacy. Dr. Sharma, PhD, who is a biochemist with Bayer says that 5.7 grams of biotin are required to neutralize all the avidin found in the raw whites of an average-sized egg. But there are only about 25 micrograms of biotin in an average egg yolk.
Raw eggs though can also be contaminated with salmonella. Originally it was thought the bacteria could only be found on the shell, but it was since shown that the bacteria can also get in to the inner egg during egg development.
The salmonella issue is overblown. A study by the USDA in 2002 indicates that only 2.3 million out of 69 billion eggs produced annually are contaminated with salmonella. Thus, only 0.003% or 1 in 30,000 eggs is infected. Based on these numbers, the average person would come across a contaminated egg only once in 42 years. And even then, if the person is healthy, salmonella is no big deal. It is generally a benign self-limiting illness in healthy people. They may feel sick for a day or two, but this infection is easily treated by taking high quality probiotics. You can reduce the risk of salmonella further by buying only high quality eggs produced by healthy, cage-free, organically fed chickens. This according to:
I know of two people who picked up salmonella from eggs.
[Quote]
And she will take only the egg yolk, not the white, as the white has very little nutrients.
The whites are a good protein source.
[/Quote]
The white has slightly more protein and much more magnesium, potassium, and sodium than the yolk. But for all other nutrients such as vitamins A, D, E and K, the yolk has overwhelmingly more. The problem with the white is that it contains avidin, which binds biotin and prevents its absorption, putting you at risk of a biotin deficiency.
Some people believe that there is more than enough biotin in the yolk to offset the bind-up losses due to avadin. This belief is a fallacy. Dr. Sharma, PhD, who is a biochemist with Bayer says that 5.7 grams of biotin are required to neutralize all the avidin found in the raw whites of an average-sized egg. But there are only about 25 micrograms of biotin in an average egg yolk.
The avidin is a problem if raw, but not if cooked. She can cook the egg whites if she wants the protein.
I know of two people who picked up salmonella from eggs.
Kevin Keener's estimate of 1 in 20,000 eggs infected with salmonella is not really very far from the USDA's estimate of 1 in 30,000 eggs. That's 0.005% versus 0.00333%, and 0.005% is still such a very small probability. This article also does not look into the seriousness of salmonella infection, which, according to the article I referenced, is not really a big deal for healthy people.
I guess it's the luck of the draw then. But with the chances of getting a salmonella infected egg being very slim and the illness if you get one not being a big deal, I think I'll take my chances with eating raw eggs. Don't you agree that the benefits outweigh the low risks?
I know of two people who picked up salmonella from eggs.
Kevin Keener's estimate of 1 in 20,000 eggs infected with salmonella is not really very far from the USDA's estimate of 1 in 30,000 eggs. That's 0.005% versus 0.00333%, and 0.005% is still such a very small probability. This article also does not look into the seriousness of salmonella infection, which, according to the article I referenced, is not really a big deal for healthy people.
I guess it's the luck of the draw then. But with the chances of getting a salmonella infected egg being very slim and the illness if you get one not being a big deal, I think I'll take my chances with eating raw eggs. Don't you agree that the benefits outweigh the low risks?
It is not that clear cut. This may be fine for someone who is healthy to begin with, but in a person who is immune suppressed the risk is much greater. Basically this is like saying why bother wiping off the pesticide residue off of vegetables since the benefits of the vegetables can outweigh the risks of the residue.
It is not that clear cut. This may be fine for someone who is healthy to begin with, but in a person who is immune suppressed the risk is much greater. Basically this is like saying why bother wiping off the pesticide residue off of vegetables since the benefits of the vegetables can outweigh the risks of the residue.
I am healthy and I'm just speaking for myself. And I always wash my veges thoroughly. In the case of veges it's different because the use of pesticides is rampant and maybe a guaranteed thing. So it boils down to the probability, which in the case of eggs having salmonella is very low.
We all have to take risks. It's a part of life. If we are always going to be afraid to take risks then what kind of life would that be? For example, if I go to the Whole Foods store to buy ACV and stuff, there is always the risk of getting into a car accident, and if it happens, the seriousness/injury is even far greater than if I were to get salmonella. But nevertheless, I go to Whole Foods despite the risk because the probability is very small (as long as I'm a good driver) and the benefit that I get from ACV far outweighs the little risk involved in going to the store to buy it.
I guess we're not really disagreeing. We just have different risk aversion profiles.
I think a major hole in these kind of studies is the use of "milk" as an all encompassing term. Unpasteurized, unprocessed milk from local grass fed cows is medicine, pure and simple. You can heal yourself with raw milk and raw egg yolks - doctors used this "therapy" a hundred years ago before pharma stepped in to make a buck off of us.
The stuff in groceries (even the organic) is grey and tastes terrible in comparison. Not only that it causes allergies in gluten intolerant folks because the cows are grain/soy/other stuff? fed. The milk I get from my local dairy is creamy, yellowish-orange, and fresh. It tingles on the tongue and is full of natural probiotics and soluble vitamins and minerals. Not "fortified."
Let's use common sense. Humans have been thriving for thousands of years on cow/goat/yak/horse/camel milk. When factory farming took over and we started processing ALL our food, we started having health issues.
If real milk caused issues I think the human race would have died out long ago from prostate cancer.
I think a major hole in these kind of studies is the use of "milk" as an all encompassing term. Unpasteurized, unprocessed milk from local grass fed cows is medicine, pure and simple.
That is a matter of opinion. Cow's milk still contains hormones derived from the animal itself. And cow's milk does have other things going against it such as its ability to break down the bones whether or not it is raw.
You can heal yourself with raw milk and raw egg yolks - doctors used this "therapy" a hundred years ago before pharma stepped in to make a buck off of us.
The stuff in groceries (even the organic) is grey and tastes terrible in comparison. Not only that it causes allergies in gluten intolerant folks because the cows are grain/soy/other stuff? fed.
Any proof to back this claim? From credible sources, not sales sites or opinion sites. Just any proof that the gluten protein makes it in to the milk.
The milk I get from my local dairy is creamy, yellowish-orange, and fresh. It tingles on the tongue and is full of natural probiotics and soluble vitamins and minerals. Not "fortified."
Fortified vitamins are also soluble.
Let's use common sense. Humans have been thriving for thousands of years on cow/goat/yak/horse/camel milk. When factory farming took over and we started processing ALL our food, we started having health issues.
Not all milks have the same properties. Goat's milk for example contains much smaller protein molecules making it considerably easier to digest.
Humans have also thrived on mother's milk since the beginning of time. But mother's milk does not make you gain 300 pounds in a month like cow's milk does for a calf. Again, there is a major difference in chemistry. So let's not use "milk" in an all encompassing term.
If real milk caused issues I think the human race would have died out long ago from prostate cancer.
You mean all humans have a prostate?
By the way, "risk factor" does not mean will cause 100% of the time.
I could could copy/paste study after study if you need "science" as proof. :-) And of course there is no unbiased study. Raw milk advocates will prove their point, while others will prove their point as well.
Question: have you ever TRIED raw milk from grass fed cows?
All of this research, bogus studies from all sides usually to sell a product as you mentioned, but where is the personal experience? This is the only source of info I deem even partially credible these days.
I can personally advocate the benefits of fresh, organic 100% grass fed raw cow milk, though I do not have a prostate. :-)
I could could copy/paste study after study if you need "science" as proof. :-) And of course there is no unbiased study. Raw milk advocates will prove their point, while others will prove their point as well.
Unless the study shows no hormones in raw milk then my point stands.
Question: have you ever TRIED raw milk from grass fed cows?
As a matter of fact yes. My family owns a cattle ranch up North of here where I use to spend my summers growing up. I have even milked cows on quite a few occasions and we made our own butter from the cream using antique churns. So yes, I have a lot of personal experience with grass fed cows and raw milk.
All of this research, bogus studies from all sides usually to sell a product as you mentioned, but where is the personal experience? This is the only source of info I deem even partially credible these days.
Then see above.
I can personally advocate the benefits of fresh, organic 100% grass fed raw cow milk, though I do not have a prostate. :-)
Images Description James’ Articles James’ YouTube Videos Rules
Home
Milk consumption is a risk factor for prostate cancer in Western countri... 
Don't you agree that the benefits outweigh the low risks?
Don't you agree that the benefits outweigh the low risks?
