Re: Milk Intake Tied to Increased Risk of Parkinson's Disease

[Guest guest]

Hi males:

Yes. Milk seems to be a risk for males. In addition to the

parkinson's disease risk noted below, two studies I am aware of found

50% and 80% protection from prostate cancer for those avoiding milk.

The 50% risk reduction came out of the Health Professionals Followup

Study; the 80% risk reduction can be found at PMID: 1745489.

Rodney.

--- In , " Al Young " <acyoung@r...>

wrote:

>

>

>

> NEW YORK (Reuters Health) Apr 06 - Milk consumption in midlife is

directly

> related to an increased risk of Parkinson's disease in men,

according to a

> report in the March 22nd issue of Neurology. The ingredient or

possible

> neurotoxic contaminant responsible for this effect is unclear, but

the

> current findings suggest it's not the calcium found in the beverage.

> The new findings support those of an earlier report linking high

consumption

> of dairy products with an elevated risk of Parkinson's disease

among men,

> but not women.

>

> The current study involved 7504 men, between 45 and 68 years old,

who were

> enrolled in the Honolulu Heart Program and followed for 30 years

for

> incident Parkinson's disease. Dietary intake for all subjects was

recorded

> when the study began in the late 1960s.

>

> A total of 128 subjects developed Parkinson's disease during follow-

up,

> senior author Dr. R. D. Abbott, from the University of Virginia

Health

> System in Charlottesville, and colleagues note.

>

> The age-adjusted incidence of Parkinson's disease was directly

related to

> milk intake and ranged from 6.9 per 10,000 person-years for those

who drank

> no milk to 14.9 per 10,000 person-years for subjects who consumed

more

> than16 oz/day (p = 0.017). On multivariate analysis, the latter

group was

> 2.3-times more likely to develop the disease than the former group.

>

> By contrast, the authors found no evidence that calcium, either

from dairy

> or non-dairy sources, had any effect on the risk of Parkinson's

disease.

>

> While these findings support previous research, additional studies

are

> needed to determine the milk constituents that mediate this

association, the

> investigators conclude.

>

> Neurology 2005;64:1047-1051.

[Guest guest]

The trouble with studies about associations of foods and disease is

that there may be OTHER factors that contribute, but which are not

considered in the studies. If the studies found a CAUSATIVE agent or

mechanism, I would find it more convincing.

I don't completely disregard the associations. They serve as a

warning of what to avoid, but just because it looks like a duck it

does not mean that it is a duck.

Tony

===

From: " Rodney " <perspect1111@...>

Date: Thu Apr 7, 2005 8:05 am

Subject: Re: Milk Intake Tied to Increased Risk of Parkinson's

Disease

Hi males:

Yes. Milk seems to be a risk for males. In addition to the

parkinson's disease risk noted below, two studies I am aware of found

50% and 80% protection from prostate cancer for those avoiding milk.

The 50% risk reduction came out of the Health Professionals Followup

Study; the 80% risk reduction can be found at PMID: 1745489.

Rodney.

[Guest guest]

Hi Tony:

I would turn that around the other way!

Just because some character in an ivory tower somewhere suggests a

plausible reason why something might cause, or prevent, a disease,

the fact that it is plausible does not mean that in the real world it

actually happens.

My personal preference is that I find it more convincing when there

is empirial evidence that there really seems to be a demonstrated

connection.

Of course, I am sure we can both agree that having BOTH the empirical

evidence AND the causal mechanism, is the best situation. But often

it is only when someone points out the apparent existence of an

empirical connection that the guys/girls in the ivory towers start

thinking about what the mechanism might be. And sometimes finding it.

jmo : ^ )))

Rodney.

>

> The trouble with studies about associations of foods and disease is

> that there may be OTHER factors that contribute, but which are not

> considered in the studies. If the studies found a CAUSATIVE agent

or

> mechanism, I would find it more convincing.

>

> I don't completely disregard the associations. They serve as a

> warning of what to avoid, but just because it looks like a duck it

> does not mean that it is a duck.

>

> Tony

>

> ===

> From: " Rodney " <perspect1111@>

> Date: Thu Apr 7, 2005 8:05 am

> Subject: Re: Milk Intake Tied to Increased Risk of Parkinson's

> Disease

> Hi males:

>

> Yes. Milk seems to be a risk for males. In addition to the

> parkinson's disease risk noted below, two studies I am aware of

found

> 50% and 80% protection from prostate cancer for those avoiding milk.

>

> The 50% risk reduction came out of the Health Professionals Followup

> Study; the 80% risk reduction can be found at PMID: 1745489.

>

> Rodney.

[Guest guest]

I don't think empirical is what I'd call an association.

I made associations of diet parameters to BP but only a few are real.

It's the character of the math process in question. That's statistical, but not a measurable quantity linking milk to a disease.

As an example we know a quadratic equation can produce a real root and an imaginary root which by inspection we know is not true.

Often these associations are maybe 10 % higher than the average and not even significant in effect.

SO if I find an association, I then try it. If it shows me an effect, it end to believe and test further. Many times there's no measurable effect, so I discard it.

Also, keep in mind Simpson's Paradox. Math is funny.

I guess one might say that there's a possibility in a few individuals, that milk causes PD, but in the vast majority there's no logical way it can apply. Too many billions of people eat dairy products.

Perhaps the new DNA test will eventually find those effected.

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: Rodney

Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 10:21 AM

Subject: [ ] Re: Milk Intake Tied to Increased Risk of Parkinson's Disease

Hi Tony:I would turn that around the other way!Just because some character in an ivory tower somewhere suggests a plausible reason why something might cause, or prevent, a disease, the fact that it is plausible does not mean that in the real world it actually happens.My personal preference is that I find it more convincing when there is empirial evidence that there really seems to be a demonstrated connection. Of course, I am sure we can both agree that having BOTH the empirical evidence AND the causal mechanism, is the best situation. But often it is only when someone points out the apparent existence of an empirical connection that the guys/girls in the ivory towers start thinking about what the mechanism might be. And sometimes finding it.jmo : ^ )))Rodney.> > The trouble with studies about associations of foods and disease is> that there may be OTHER factors that contribute, but which are not> considered in the studies. If the studies found a CAUSATIVE agent or> mechanism, I would find it more convincing. > > I don't completely disregard the associations. They serve as a> warning of what to avoid, but just because it looks like a duck it> does not mean that it is a duck.> > Tony>

[Guest guest]

This new test was poo-pooed on tonights national news. According to experts

we're at least 5 years away from reliable DNA tests that can tell you what

you should be eating for your DNA. It's an interesting concept though.

on 4/8/2005 7:35 PM, jwwright at jwwright@... wrote:

> Perhaps the new DNA test will eventually find those effected.

>

> Regards.

>