Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Saturday January 25 2020, @02:02PM   Printer-friendly
from the it-does-a-body-good-(in-small-doses) dept.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

[...]Research on 5,834 U.S. adults by Brigham Young University exercise science professor Larry Tucker, Ph.D., found people who drink low-fat milk experience several years less biological aging than those who drink high-fat (2% and whole) milk.

[...]Tucker investigated the relationship between telomere length and both milk intake frequency (daily drinkers vs. weekly drinkers or less) and milk fat content consumed (whole vs. 2% vs. 1% vs. skim). Telomeres are the nucleotide endcaps of human chromosomes. They act like a biological clock and they're extremely correlated with age; each time a cell replicates, humans lose a tiny bit of the endcaps. Therefore, the older people get, the shorter their telomeres.

And, apparently, the more high-fat milk people drink, the shorter their telomeres are, according to the new BYU study, published in Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity. The study revealed that for every 1% increase in milk fat consumed (drinking 2% vs. 1% milk), telomeres were 69 base pairs shorter in the adults studied, which translated into more than four years in additional biological aging. When Tucker analyzed the extremes of milk drinkers, adults who consumed whole milk had telomeres that were a striking 145 base pairs shorter than non-fat milk drinkers.

-- submitted from IRC

Larry A. Tucker. Milk Fat Intake and Telomere Length in U.S. Women and Men: The Role of the Milk Fat Fraction. Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity, 2019; 2019: 1 DOI: 10.1155/2019/1574021


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday January 25 2020, @04:04PM (2 children)

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Saturday January 25 2020, @04:04PM (#948487) Homepage Journal

    You'd have to control the entire rest of their diets if you wanted a causal result instead of a correlative one.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by barbara hudson on Saturday January 25 2020, @04:28PM (1 child)

    by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Saturday January 25 2020, @04:28PM (#948494) Journal
    And that sums up what passes for "research " nowadays. So. Why didn't they report on people who only drink 3.25%? The 1% milk was a marketing scam letting them skim more cream while selling you the adulterated milk that would otherwise be turned into animal feed. I refuse to pay almost full price for something that has the best parts removed. And for those who worry about fat consumption, just consume less.

    And don't do your infants any "favours " by using 1% milk instead of whole milk. At one point stupid people ended up with kids showing signs of malnutrition because they weren't getting enough protein. The traditional "half milk half water to start" dilutes whole milk to 1.75%, dilute enough for the first few days, before starting on 3.25% (human breast milk is about 5% after the first week or so, but starts off lower), but skim milk to 0.5%, not enough for brain development.

    Formula? Only if you can't nurse and can't get milk. Otherwise it's just a waste of money.

    --
    SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.