Children drinking non-cow milk little shorter than peers

Agencies
June 25, 2017

Jun 25: A new study suggests drinking non-cow milk- soy, almond or rice milks - is linked to shorter kids.cowmilk

The study, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, found that each daily cup of non-cow's milk consumed was associated with 0.4 centimeters (0.15 inches) lower height than average for a child's age.

"We found that children who are consuming non-cow's milk like rice, almond and soy milk tended to be a little bit shorter than children who consumed cow's milk," said Dr. Jonathon Maguire, the study's lead author and a pediatrician and researchers at St. Michael's Hospital in Toronto.

"For example, a 3-year-old child consuming three cups of non-cow's milk relative to cow's milk was on average 1.5 centimeters shorter."

That's over half an inch difference, which Maguire said is "not a tiny difference when you're 3 years old."

The study was a cross-section involving 5,034 healthy Canadian children ranging in age from two to six years old. The subjects were on average 38 months of age, with 51% being male, and were recruited from nine family and pediatric health-care practices from December 2008 to September 2015.

Of those participating, about five percent drank exclusively non-cow's milks, and about 84% drank only cow's milk; about eight percent drank both and about three precent drank neither.

Maguire said the most surprising finding was "that the amount children were shorter depended on how much they were consuming."

"It's not like if you're not consuming cow's milk, you're a little shorter," he said. "It's more like if you are consuming non-cow's milk, with each cup that a child consumes, that child on average appears to be a little bit smaller, a little shorter. That's a bit surprising."

Does it matter if a kid is half an inch shorter at the age of three? Does it correlate to height in adulthood?

"That's one remaining question. We don't know if the kids consuming non-cow's milk, maybe they catch up over time, or maybe they don't. Time's going to have to tell," he said.

"We do know in general as pediatricians that children who are on a certain percentile line in terms of height tend to stay on that line for the rest of their childhood and into adulthood."

The findings are sure to add fire to the ongoing debate about the benefits of cow's milk versus dairy alternatives.

Amy Joy Lanou, a professor of health and wellness at the University of North Carolina-Asheville who was not involved in the research, said she had several issues with the study, most notably why only milk consumption was considered.

"It's just odd to me why we wouldn't be looking at the overall diets of the children," Lanou said. "If they're making the claim that it's because it's the difference in the types of milk the kids are drinking, well, what else are they eating?"

Lanou, whose research has led her to believe that cow's milk is "not a necessary food," said she believes the study makes an improper leap by implying that taller means healthier.

"Taller children and heavier children are not necessarily healthier adults, or even healthier children," she said. "I think they're using height as a marker for health, and I'm not sure that's appropriate."

Connie Weaver, a professor of nutrition science at Purdue University who was also not involved in the study, said she found it interesting.

"This is the first study that I recall directly comparing cow milk with plant-based beverages for a physiological benefit," she wrote in an email. "We know that some of the plant beverages, almond especially, have lower protein contents so I have speculated that calcium absorption may be lower. This would suggest that cow's milk is superior."

However, she says, "A wrong message would be if people who do not consume cow's milk would decide to avoid the plant-based milks also."

The study suggests that one reason for the difference in height might be that plant-based milks do not stimulate insulin-like growth factor, or IGF, production as well as cow's milk does. Studies have found that adults with higher levels of certain IGFs have increased risks of reproductive cancers.

"Having less IGF may compromise height but that may lower risk of fracture -- and some cancers, too," Weaver said.

Overall, she would advise parents that "cow's milk may be the best option, but plant-based beverages provide many needed nutrients like protein, calcium, magnesium, potassium," which is far better than what most kids might prefer to drink.

Lanou would tell parents who are already giving plant-based milks to their children not to worry -- but to make sure their kids are getting enough protein from other sources throughout the day.

Maguire said he'd like to see soy, almond and rice milks more tightly regulated to bring the industry, in line with cow's milk.

"As a consumer and as a parent, you have to be pretty savvy when going to the grocery store to choose a non-cow's milk beverage that has similar nutritional value as cow's milk," he said. "Many of those beverages are marketed as being equivalent to cow's milk when they're not."

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
March 3,2020

Taking multiple courses of antibiotics within a short span of time may do people more harm than good, suggests new research which discovered an association between the number of prescriptions for antibiotics and a higher risk of hospital admissions.

Patients who have had 9 or more antibiotic prescriptions for common infections in the previous three years are 2.26 times more likely to go to hospital with another infection in three or more months, said the researchers.

Patients who had two antibiotic prescriptions were 1.23 times more likely, patients who had three to four prescriptions 1.33 times more likely and patients who had five to eight 1.77 times more likely to go to hospital with another infection.

"We don't know why this is, but overuse of antibiotics might kill the good bacteria in the gut (microbiota) and make us more susceptible to infections, for example," said Professor Tjeerd van Staa from the University of Manchester in Britain.

The study, published in the journal BMC Medicine, is based on the data of two million patients in England and Wales.

The patient records, from 2000 to 2016, covered common infections such as upper respiratory tract, urinary tract, ear and chest infections and excluded long term conditions such as cystic fibrosis and chronic lung disease.

The risks of going to hospital with another infection were related to the number of the antibiotic prescriptions in the previous three years.

A course is defined by the team as being given over a period of one or two weeks.

"GPs (general physicians) care about their patients, and over recent years have worked hard to reduce the prescribing of antibiotics,""Staa said.

"But it is clear GPs do not have the tools to prescribe antibiotics effectively for common infections, especially when patients already have previously used antibiotics.

"They may prescribe numerous courses of antibiotics over several years, which according to our study increases the risk of a more serious infection. That in turn, we show, is linked to hospital admissions," Staa added.

It not clear why hospital admissions are linked to higher prescriptions and research is needed to show what or if any biological factors exist, said the research team.

"Our hope is that, however, a tool we are working for GPs, based on patient history, will be able to calculate the risks associated with taking multiple courses of antibiotics," said Francine Jury from the University of Manchester.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
June 20,2020

The World Health Organisation has warned that the COVID-19 pandemic is entering a "new and dangerous" phase. Thursday saw the most cases in a single day reported to the WHO.

Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said the day had seen 150,000 new cases with half of those coming from the Americas and large numbers also from the Middle East and South Asia, the BBC reported.

He said the virus was still spreading fast and the pandemic accelerating.

He acknowledged people might be fed up with self-isolating and countries were eager to open their economies but he said that now was a time for extreme vigilance.

Maria van Kerkhove, technical lead of the WHO's COVID-19 response, told a press conference the pandemic is "accelerating in many parts of the world".

"While we have seen countries have some success in suppressing transmission and bringing transition down to a low level, every country must remain ready," she said.

Mike Ryan, the head of the WHO's Health Emergencies Programme, said that some countries had managed to flatten the peak of infections without bringing them down to a very low level.

"You can see a situation in some countries where they could get a second peak now, because the disease has not been brought under control," he said.

"The disease will then go away and reduce to a low level, and they could then get a second wave again in the autumn or later in the year."

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
June 27,2020

After admitting that the world may have a COVID-19 vaccine within one year or even a few months earlier, the World Health Organisation (WHO) on Friday said that UK-based AstraZeneca is leading the vaccine race while US-based pharmaceutical major Moderna is not far behind.

WHO Chief Scientist Soumya Swaminathan stated that the AstraZeneca's coronavirus vaccine candidate is the most advanced vaccine currently in terms of development.

"I think AstraZeneca certainly has a more global scope at the moment in terms of where they are doing and planning their vaccine trials," she told the media.

AstraZeneca's Covid-19 vaccine candidate developed by researchers from the Oxford University will likely provide protection against the disease for one year, the British drug maker's CEO told Belgian radio station Bel RTL this month.

The Oxford University last month announced the start of a Phase II/III UK trial of the vaccine, named AZD1222 (formerly known as ChAdOx1 nCoV-19), in about 10,000 adult volunteers. Other late-stage trials are due to begin in a number of countries.

Last week, Swaminathan had said that nearly 2 billion doses of the COVID-19 vaccine would be ready by the end of next year.

Addressing the media from Geneva, she said that "at the moment, we do not have a proven vaccine but if we are lucky, there will be one or two successful candidates before the end of this year" and 2 billion doses by the end of next year.

Scientists predict that the world may have a COVID-19 vaccine within one year or even a few months earlier, said the Director-General of the World Health Organization even as he underlined the importance of global cooperation to develop, manufacture and distribute the vaccines.

However, making the vaccine available and distributing it to all will be a challenge and will require political will, WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said on Thursday during a meeting with the European Parliament's Committee for Environment, Public Health and Food Safety.

One option would be to give the vaccine only to those who are most vulnerable to the virus.

There are currently over 100 COVID-19 vaccine candidates in various stages of development.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.