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 11,2020

With the sales of chicken and mutton going down due to the coronavirus scare, it is the humble 'Kathal' (jackfruit) is emerging as an acceptable alternative.

'Kathal' is now selling at ₹120 per kilogram -- an increase of more than 120 per cent over the normal ₹50 per kilogram.

The jackfruit, in fact, is now priced higher than chicken which is selling at ₹80 per kilogram due to poor demand.

"It is better having a 'Kathal' biryani instead of a mutton biryani. It tastes reasonably good. The only problem is that 'Kathal' has been sold out in the vegetable market and is difficult to find," said Purnima Srivastava whose family savours non-vegetarian food on a regular basis.

The corona scare has hit poultry business so hard and the Poultry Farm Association recently organized a Chicken Mela in Gorakhpur to dispel the misconception that birds are carriers of the deadly virus.

"In fact, we gave away plateful of chicken dishes for Rs 30 to encourage people to savour the delicacies. We cooked one thousand kilograms of chicken for the Mela and the entire stock was sold out," said Vineet Singh, head of the Poultry Farm Association.

However, the Mela did not do much to dispel the fears about chicken, mutton or fish consumption amid the virus outbreak.

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
May 10,2020

Washington D.C., May 9: Do the middle age feel much stressful now, and seems to have changed over time, if compared to the life in the 90s? Well, this recent study indicates that it might be true.

The study has signalled to the fact that life may become more stressful majorly for middle-aged people than it was in the 1990s. The researchers reached this analysis even before the novel coronavirus started sweeping the globe.

A team of researchers led by Penn State found that across all ages, there was a slight increase in daily stress in the 2010s compared to the 1990s. But when researchers restricted the sample to people between the ages of 45 and 64, there was a sharp increase in daily stress.

"On average, people reported about 2 percent more stressors in the 2010s compared to people in the past," said David M. Almeida, professor of human development and family studies at Penn State.

"That's around an additional week of stress a year. But what really surprised us is that people at mid-life reported a lot more stressors, about 19 percent more stress in 2010 than in 1990. And that translates to 64 more days of stress a year."

Almeida said the findings were part of a larger project aiming to discover whether health during the middle of Americans' lives has been changing over time.

"Certainly, when you talk to people, they seem to think that daily life is more hectic and less certain these days," Almeida said.

For the study, the researchers collected data from 1,499 adults in 1995 and 782 different adults in 2012.

Almeida said the goal was to study two cohorts of people who were the same age at the time the data was collected but born in different decades. All study participants were interviewed daily for eight consecutive days.

During each daily interview, the researchers asked the participants about their stressful experiences throughout the previous 24 hours.

They asked questions related to arguments with family or friends or feeling overwhelmed at home or work, so and so. The participants were also asked how severe their stress was and whether those stressors were likely to impact other areas of their lives.

"We were able to estimate not only how frequently people experienced stress, but also what those stressors mean to them," Almeida said.

"For example, did this stress affect their finances or their plans for the future. And by having these two cohorts of people, we were able to compare daily stress processes in 1990 with daily stress processes in 2010," Almeida added.

After analyzing the data, the researchers found that participants reported significantly more daily stress and lower well-being in the 2010s compared to the 1990s.

Additionally, participants reported a 27 percent increase in the belief that stress would affect their finances and a 17 percent increase in the belief that stress would affect their future plans.

Almeida said he was surprised not that people were more stressed now than in the 90s, but at the age group that was mainly affected.

"We thought that with economic uncertainty, life might be more stressful for younger adults. But we didn't see that. We saw more stress for people at mid-life," Almeida said.

"And maybe that's because they have children who are facing an uncertain job market while also responsible for their own parents. So it's this generational squeeze that's making stress more prevalent for people at mid-life," he concluded.

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
May 19,2020

New York, May 19: Cigarette smoke spurs the lungs to make more of the receptor protein which the novel coronavirus uses to enter human cells, according to a study which suggests that quitting smoking might reduce the risk of a severe coronavirus infection.

The findings, published in the journal Developmental Cell, may explain why smokers appear to be particularly vulnerable to severe COVID-19 disease.

"Our results provide a clue as to why smokers who develop COVID-19 tend to have poor clinical outcomes," said study senior author Jason Sheltzer, a cancer geneticist at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in the US.

"We found that smoking caused a significant increase in the expression of ACE2, the protein that SARS-CoV-2 uses to enter human cells," Sheltzer said.

According to the scientists, quitting smoking might reduce the risk of a severe coronavirus infection.

They said most individuals infected with the virus suffer only mild illness, if they experience any at all.

However, some require intensive care when the sometimes-fatal virus attacks, the researchers said.

In particular, they said three groups have been significantly more likely than others to develop severe illness -- men, the elderly, and smokers.

Turning to previously published data for possible explanations for these disparities, the scientists assessed if vulnerable groups share some key features related to the human proteins that the coronavirus relies on for infection.

First, they said, they focused on comparing gene activity in the lungs across different ages, between the sexes, and between smokers and nonsmokers.

The scientists said both mice that had been exposed to smoke in a laboratory, and humans who were current smokers had significant upregulation of ACE2.

According to Sheltzer, smokers produced 30-55 per cent more ACE2 than their non-smoking counterparts.

While the researchers found no evidence that age or sex impacts ACE2 levels in the lungs, they said the influence of smoke exposure was surprisingly strong.

However, they said, the change seemed to be temporary.

According to the data, the level of the receptors ACE2 in the lungs of people who had quit smoking was similar to that of non-smokers.

The study noted that the most prolific producers of ACE2 in the airways are mucus-producing cells called goblet cells.

Smoking is known to increase the prevalence of such cells, the scientists said.

"Goblet cells produce mucous to protect the respiratory tract from inhaled irritants. Thus, the increased expression of ACE2 in smokers' lungs could be a byproduct of smoking-induced secretory cell hyperplasia," Sheltzer explained.

However, Sheltzer said other studies on the effects of cigarette smoke have shown mixed results.

"Cigarette smoke contains hundreds of different chemicals. It's possible that certain ingredients like nicotine have a different effect than whole smoke does," he said.

The researchers cautioned that the actual ACE2 protein may be regulated in ways not addressed in the current study.

"One could imagine that having more cells that express ACE2 could make it easier for SARS-CoV-2 to spread in someone's lungs, but there is still a lot more we need to explore," Sheltzer said.

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.