Milk in Tea May Negate Positive Health Benefits

[D.]

Anyone who reads the headlines can see that tea is beneficial.
Green tea, and tea in general, is being shown as having
tremendous health benefits due to its antioxidant effects,
anti-inflammatory action, and vasodilating effects (which help
to prevent cardiovascular disease.) In fact, I've tired of
writing about the positive effects of tea drinking on my blog
and will now only discuss major clinical trials and updated
news of significance.

But there is a new, smaller study from Germany which caught my
interest because this study found that one of the ways that
many of us drink tea may actually be dampening, or
eliminating, the benefits of the beverage.

The "European Heart Journal" reports in the January 2007
edition that a German team at Charit=E9 University Hospital
(Berlin) studied healthy women who were not taking medications
or drinking tea. They tested these women on various tea
preparations, including a group on simple boiled water and
another on tea with milk.

As it turns out, in this test using black tea (the drink of
choice in Germany), the woman with black tea and no milk had
the best results. Tea drinkers who put milk in their tea lost
most of the advantages of the tea. The scientists closed by
stating that "adding milk to tea completely prevents the
biological activity of tea" (in terms of improvement of
endothelial function). Similar results were obtained in cell
culture studies; when tea was added without milk, a positive
vascular effect could be forecast. When the milk was added,
there was no vasodilatory effect.

Sounds like tea is best enjoyed without milk.

Dave

Full text article above was extracted from
http://shamvswham.blogspot.com/

[monty1945]

"...antioxidant effects, anti-inflammatory action, and
vasodilating effects..."

What this means is that it counteracts/inhibits arachionic
acid metabolization. The good news is that you don't need
arachidonic acid in your body in the first place. A tasty,
inexpensive, and practical diet will remove this molecule from
your body in about two years, or less. There are still a few
people who don't have it in their bodies, but most people do,
so this is why people are being told to do these things, some
of which are very dangerous, like taking fish oil.

Why not tell people to get this molecule out of their bodies?
It's due to an incorrect interpretation of experimental
findings, though there seems to be something else at work
(from my experience in academia, my guess is that it involves
the desire to stake out scholarly "turf"), because it was
directly refuted in 1948 (the "essential fatty acid" claim).
See the Encyclopedia Britannica's Book of the Year for that
year, biochemistry section.

You can read more about the relevant evidence, along with some
essays I wrote on this and related subjects, at my free site:

http://groups.msn.com/TheScientificDebateForum-

[D.]

On Aug 15, 3:53 pm, Mark Thorson <nos...@sonic.net> wrote:
> "D." wrote:
>
> > Anyone who reads the headlines can see that tea is
> > beneficial. Green tea, and tea in general, is being shown
> > as having tremendous health benefits due to its
> > antioxidant effects, anti-inflammatory action, and
> > vasodilating effects (which help to prevent cardiovascular
> > disease.)
>
> That statement is true, but watch the sleight-of-hand used
> by the blogspot spammer to slam tea as a beverage (perhaps
> because it competes with the sales of tea-based supplements,
> such as tea extracts and EGCG).
>
> > As it turns out, in this test using black tea (the drink
> > of choice in Germany), the woman with black tea and no
> > milk had the best results. Tea drinkers who put milk in
> > their tea lost most of the advantages of the tea.
>
> When the blogspot spammer says that the tea drinkers "lost
> most of the advantages of the tea", he is implying that all
> of the benefits listed earlier are affected. That's not at
> all true. Of the listed benefits, only ONE was studied in
> this research -- the vasodilating effect. The other benefits
> were not studied.
>
> There are other studies which directly address these other
> benefits, which don't contradict the German study but DO
> contradict the blogspot spammer's misinterpretation of the
> German study.
>
> No one will get complete and accurate information from the
> blogspot spammer. Sometimes he gets the story wrong
> through sheer ignorance, but other times it's because
> complete and accurate information doesn't fit the story
> he's trying to peddle.
>
> J Agric Food Chem. 2007 Jun 13;55(12):4889-94. Effects of
> infusion time and addition of milk on content and absorption
> of polyphenols from black tea. Kyle JA, Morrice PC, McNeill
> G, Duthie GG. Rowett Research Institute, Aberdeen AB21 9SB,
> Scotland, U.K.
>
> Epidemiological studies assessing the health benefits of
> drinking black tea are equivocal. Such disparity may reflect
> an inability of semiquantitative assessment to consider how
> infusion time and addition of milk affect the
> bioavailability of potentially beneficial antioxidant
> polyphenols. Six brands of tea demonstrated similar
> increases in antioxidant capacity and total phenolic and
> catechin contents with increasing infusion time. These
> results were unaffected by the addition of
> milk. Consumption of black tea (400 mL) was associated with
> significant increases in plasma antioxidant capacity
> (10%) and concentrations of total phenols (20%),
> catechins (32%), and the flavonols quercetin (39%) and
> kaempferol (45%) (all p < 0.01) within 80 min. This
> was unaffected by adding
> milk. Infusion time may therefore be a more important
> determinant in the absorption of polyphenols from
> black tea. Observational studies assessing the health
> benefits of tea consumption require recording of
> brewing methods as well as frequency of consumption.

Mark, thanks for bringing the above abstract to the
discussion. I think these chemists were concerned, as you
generally are, with chemistry oriented issues. My mentioned
publication in the MD- referreed journal was more directed to
certain issues of health - (vascular benefits of tea) - and
therefore we're looking at two diifferent viewpoints. Both
beneficial to understand the implications of milk added to
tea. Personally, I don't want to lose ANY benefit from such a
wonderful compound, so I will not take chances by adding
milk. Give it to me straight and black ): . . . or straight
and green, for that matter.

Anyway, I'd like to suggest that you start acting like others
on this forum and bring questions, comments, studies (like
this one!) to the discussion without the name calling and
nastiness. Do you think you can do that, or are you simply
into troll territory now? Please, at least consider making
this thread a dialog, as you've brought some good points to
the table. I'd rather see those good points without having to
wring the mud-slinging off of them first.

Dave

[Mark Thors]

"D." wrote:
>
> Anyway, I'd like to suggest that you start acting like
> others on this forum and bring questions, comments, studies
> (like this one!) to the discussion without the name calling
> and nastiness. Do you think you can do that, or are you
> simply into troll territory now? Please, at least consider
> making this thread a dialog, as you've brought some good
> points to the table. I'd rather see those good points
> without having to wring the mud-slinging off of them first.

You are one who has engaged in making false accusations. I
have not made any false accusations. You are the one who is
abusing this group with spam for your commercial blogspot web
site. I don't have any commercial interests.

You should start acting like a normal Usenet citizen by
ceasing to spam for your commercial blogspot web site. This is
a discussion newsgroup, not a free source of commercial
advertising. Until you start behaving like an honest person,
don't expect to be treated like one.

[D.]

On Aug 15, 5:31 pm, Mark Thorson <nos...@sonic.net> wrote:
> "D." wrote:
>
> > Anyway, I'd like to suggest that you start acting like
> > others on this forum and bring questions, comments,
> > studies (like this one!) to the discussion without the
> > name calling and nastiness. Do you think you can do that,
> > or are you simply into troll territory now? Please, at
> > least consider making this thread a dialog, as you've
> > brought some good points to the table. I'd rather see
> > those good points without having to wring the mud-slinging
> > off of them first.
>
> You are one who has engaged in making false accusations. I
> have not made any false accusations. You are the one who is
> abusing this group with spam for your commercial blogspot
> web site. I don't have any commercial interests.
>
> You should start acting like a normal Usenet citizen by
> ceasing to spam for your commercial blogspot web site. This
> is a discussion newsgroup, not a free source of commercial
> advertising. Until you start behaving like an honest person,
> don't expect to be treated like one.

Mark, you've got a pretty weird definition of spam. I post to
two or three newsgroups regularly, and read them religiously.
My posts here are never commercial. I think if you are seeing
something commercial, it's either because you have an overly
broad definition of what that means, or you are making things
up. Anyway, my only regret is that you seem to stop other
people from coming in and commenting on the subjects, because
no one wants to step into a flame war.

If someone other than Mark is reading this and considering
jumping in, please do so. Mark's anger is with me, not you,
and we can still make a decent thread out of the topic,

Dave

[Mark Thors]

"D." wrote:
>
> Mark, you've got a pretty weird definition of spam. I post
> to two or three newsgroups regularly, and read them
> religiously. My posts here are never commercial.

Every one of your posts is pimping your commercial
blogspot web site. You are abusing a non-commercial
discussion newsgroup every time you advertise your
commercial blogspot web site.

You have admitted that your blogspot site is a commercial site
when you said (on 7/21/07):

> On occasion, I will mention a product that I am affiliated
> with, and this is clearly presented in the text. That only
> happens in about one out of ten or twelve posts.

When I call you a spammer, that is not name calling. That is
an accurate identification based on your commercial interests
that drive your postings.

Your attempt to deflect this identification fails, because it
is routine practice for the more professional spammers to mix
in less obviously commercial material with their advertising,
to make the customer less aware that it's a sales job.

Tell me, how much poison (like arsenic) would I have to add to
a bowl of soup before all of the soup becomes poison? Would 5%
be enough? Would 10% be enough?

[D.]

Mark,

I just looked back on my last half-dozen posts here. Here are
the two elements. Please tell me where the "spam" is so that I
can modify them further, not to suit you, but to make them
more readable or relevant to the group:

1) The subject line (note that because of your comments, I
dropped the mention of the source of the article from the
subject line.). The subject lines now simply states the
subject of my opinions in the enclosed post.

2) The body of the post. It is simply a full text article,
consisting of my opinion on some news story that happens to
be current in the fields of alternative health care or
nutrition. At the end of the article, I place a link to the
source of the original text, just as many others do when
referencing an article.

Please note that the usenet is full of opinions, and that is
what my posts are. I welcome (and even appreciate) your
opinions about my posts, but I do not welcome ad hominem
attacks. Please limit your comments to the post -- my opinions
-- and do not make claims about my intentions unless you have
something where I have slipped up and posted something that is
blatently commercial or for sale, etc.

Let's move this conversation up a notch.

Dave

[Mark Thors]

"D." wrote:
>
> Mark, being in your business has you involved in aggressive
> attacks against people who are into natural products, or
> non-chemical kinds of therapies. When you say that just
> being in your business has nothing to do with it, I believe
> you are wrong. I think that your business has EVERYTHING to
> do with the way you comment on my posts.

My business is the semiconductor and computer business. I have
never worked for any pharmaceutical or medical or
health-related company, despite your LYING assertion that I'm
a "Pharmaceutical Chemist". Once you've gone down that road
you have too much ego invested in it to stop. You can't admit
you were just fabricating spin, because that would be the same
thing as admitting everything I've said about you is correct.

Falsely accusing someone of being a "Pharmaceutical Chemist"
in this newsgroup is exactly like accusing someone of being a
Communist back in the 1950's. You are practicing a form of
neo-McCarthyism.

You have no honesty. You will make any accusation to deflect
honest criticism of your spamming activities, and honest
criticism of the terrible omissions in your poorly researched
"articles".

[Nick Chan]

I remember that some types of tea has too much lactic acid?
any studies on this? On Aug 16, 4:29 am, "D."
<djense...@cox.net> wrote:
> Anyone who reads the headlines can see that tea is
> beneficial. Green tea, and tea in general, is being shown as
> having tremendous health benefits due to its antioxidant
> effects, anti-inflammatory action, and vasodilating effects
> (which help to prevent cardiovascular disease.) In fact,
> I've tired of writing about the positive effects of tea
> drinking on my blog and will now only discuss major clinical
> trials and updated news of significance.
>
> But there is a new, smaller study from Germany which caught
> my interest because this study found that one of the ways
> that many of us drink tea may actually be dampening, or
> eliminating, the benefits of the beverage.
>
> The "European Heart Journal" reports in the January 2007
> edition that a German team at Charit=E9 University Hospital
> (Berlin) studied healthy women who were not taking
> medications or drinking tea. They tested these women on
> various tea preparations, including a group on simple boiled
> water and another on tea with milk.
>
> As it turns out, in this test using black tea (the drink of
> choice in Germany), the woman with black tea and no milk had
> the best results. Tea drinkers who put milk in their tea
> lost most of the advantages of the tea. The scientists
> closed by stating that "adding milk to tea completely
> prevents the biological activity of tea" (in terms of
> improvement of endothelial function). Similar results were
> obtained in cell culture studies; when tea was added without
> milk, a positive vascular effect could be forecast. When the
> milk was added, there was no vasodilatory effect.
>
> Sounds like tea is best enjoyed without milk.
>
> Dave
>
> Full text article above was extracted
> fromhttp://shamvswham.blogspot.com/

[Nick Chan]

I remember that some types of tea has too much lactic acid?
any studies on this? On Aug 16, 4:29 am, "D."
<djense...@cox.net> wrote:
> Anyone who reads the headlines can see that tea is
> beneficial. Green tea, and tea in general, is being shown as
> having tremendous health benefits due to its antioxidant
> effects, anti-inflammatory action, and vasodilating effects
> (which help to prevent cardiovascular disease.) In fact,
> I've tired of writing about the positive effects of tea
> drinking on my blog and will now only discuss major clinical
> trials and updated news of significance.
>
> But there is a new, smaller study from Germany which caught
> my interest because this study found that one of the ways
> that many of us drink tea may actually be dampening, or
> eliminating, the benefits of the beverage.
>
> The "European Heart Journal" reports in the January 2007
> edition that a German team at Charit=E9 University Hospital
> (Berlin) studied healthy women who were not taking
> medications or drinking tea. They tested these women on
> various tea preparations, including a group on simple boiled
> water and another on tea with milk.
>
> As it turns out, in this test using black tea (the drink of
> choice in Germany), the woman with black tea and no milk had
> the best results. Tea drinkers who put milk in their tea
> lost most of the advantages of the tea. The scientists
> closed by stating that "adding milk to tea completely
> prevents the biological activity of tea" (in terms of
> improvement of endothelial function). Similar results were
> obtained in cell culture studies; when tea was added without
> milk, a positive vascular effect could be forecast. When the
> milk was added, there was no vasodilatory effect.
>
> Sounds like tea is best enjoyed without milk.
>
> Dave
>
> Full text article above was extracted
> fromhttp://shamvswham.blogspot.com/

[D.]

On Aug 15, 7:16 pm, Nick Chan <zzzxtr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I remember that some types of tea has too much lactic acid?
> any studies on this?

Nick,

I am not aware of any, but I haven't done a Pubmed search on
that topic. Speaking anecdotely, I remember a tea that I had
in a sort of new-age coffee shop which was called Kombucha,
and that tea (the owner was saying) has more lactic acid than
any other tea. At the time, I didn't associate that with
anything negative. It did have plenty of healthy probiotic
bugs in it, though.

Dave