Active Low-Carber Forums - Children fed Whole Milk grow taller than babies fed skim milk

Active Low-Carber Forums (http://forum.lowcarber.org/index.php)

- LC Research/Media (http://forum.lowcarber.org/forumdisplay.php?f=4)

- - Children fed Whole Milk grow taller than babies fed skim milk (http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=477419)

Children fed Whole Milk grow taller than babies fed skim milk

This is not the title of the article, but it is the finding of this article that the reporter almost choked on trying not to say. All other milks tested were low fat. It was full fat milk that stimulated growth in children.

Of course this was epidemiological and not a clinical trial but it's always nice to see full fat milk being exonerated.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/drinking-non-cow-s-milk-linked-to-lower-height-in-children-1.3447903

Thanks for this information. I've fixed the link:
http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/drinki...ldren-1.3447903

This is interesting, and as you point out, it is strictly epidemiological evidence showing a correlation only. We could speculate about why, but I'm thinking there may be a number of factors including quantity, fat content, vitamin content, availability, etc.

This is a revealing quote from the article that begs further research:

Quote:

In previous research, Dr. Maguire has found that young children who drink whole milk are leaner and have higher vitamin D levels than those who consume low-fat or skim milk.

That study didn’t delve into the reasons behind the findings either, but Dr. Maguire hypothesized that kids who drank a whole milk may feel fuller, and thus don’t consume as many high-calorie foods as kids who drank lower fat milks.

OK so fewer calories make kids taller and leaner, more calories make kids shorter and fatter? Makes perfect sense to me! But seriously, I like this quote here:

Quote:

Though the study was not designed to look at why non-cow’s milk was linked to shorter heights, the authors suspect that children who drink non-cow's milk consume less dietary protein and fat than those who drink cow's milk. Both are essential to growth in early childhood.

I'm reading the full paper's conclusions and they hypothesize that somehow kids who grow shorter didn't get enough protein and/or calories, and/or there's the IGF-1 factor where there's more IGF-1 in cow's milk than in non-cow "milk" (they count various juices and beverages as milk, i.e. almond milk, soy milk, etc).

I'll put up an alternative hypothesis. Kids who drink noncow milk, and kids who drink cowmilk, both growth shorter than kids who don't drink any milk past weaning, and instead drink water and eat genuine food just like every other growing offspring of every other species on this planet. You see, the study didn't compare water intake or diet quality, it's just about cow milk vs substitutes. Also, it's not an experiment so Imma gonna ignore everything about it, and instead rely on solid experimental evidence like my own personal n=1 for example, and on some reasonable principles like eat real food or something like that.

Vitamin D is fat soluble and accessible to build bone better if the kid drinks high fat milk. The vitamins and calcium in skimmed milk probably get excreted (vits) or build up (Ca) in the arteries.

I was thinking the same thing. Fat solubles (A,D,E,K) need fat to be absorbed.

I remember when the whole low fat thing got going in the 70s and 80s people who did not question it for themselves saying that skimmed and semi-skimmed milk should not be given to children - it may have been official medical advice in the UK back then.

In North America the medical advice was to give whole milk to kids up to age 2, but a lot of growth happens after that! Whole milk also filled kids up, so they didn't feel like overeating.