Harvard Declares Dairy Not Part of a Healthy Diet

[bit_pattern]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

I don't need those stuffed shirts to "educate me", boy.

Get over yourself.

Evidently you do. Or are you one of those macho "I reject evidence based arguments cos I'm an American and its my god given right to eat bacon chop chip ice cream just try and take it from my cold, sticky finger" type of woo-monger?

[NeilC]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

And maybe you have the same false memory that affects me and jt512.

Like I said, I'm all for an alternate authoritative source to explain this matter, but the links so far say the opposite.

I don't understand?

I'm saying that adding salt to water makes it boil at a hotter temperature. I also know that if you cook something at a higher temperature, it takes less time to cook. This is the reason why pressure cookers cook fast.

These are both facts and not even slightly controversial.

[bjornart]

SkepticGinger's earlier cite on salted water appears right in argument, but wrong in conclusion:

It says a teaspoon per quart raises the temperature 1-2 degrees F, but goes on to conclude this is significant.

http://www.ehow.com/about_5632941_ef...#ixzz1ibxblaxE

Quote:

The higher boiling point of salt water has two important implications in cooking. First, water takes longer to come to a boil if it contains salt. Second, the temperature of the boiling water is higher. Adding salt to pasta water means it takes longer to bring it to a boil, but the pasta will cook more quickly due to the higher temperature.

Now this seems obviously wrong to me, but I'll let someone else say it for me:

Quote:

But in cooking, the rise is nowhere near enough to make any difference, unless you throw in so much salt that you could use the water to melt ice on your driveway.
As any chemist will be happy to calculate for you, adding a table spoon (20 grams) of table salt to five quarts of boiling water fo cooking a pound of pasta will raise the boiling point by seven hundreths of 1 degree F. that might shorten the cooking time by half a second or so. anyone who is in that much of a hurry to get the spaghetti onto the table may also want to consider rollerblading it from the kitchen to the dining room.

pp. 46-47, Wolke, Robert L., What Einstein told his cook, 2002

[bit_pattern]

You don't use salt water to make the pasta cook faster but rather to make it more firm to the bite, the salt reduces gelation in the pasta and stops from turning sticky, and also for the taste of it.

http://cooking.stackexchange.com/que...-cooking-pasta

Quote:

The salt adds flavor, but it also helps reduce the gelation of the starch in the pasta. The starch in food is the form of microscopic grains. When these grains come into contact with water, they will trap some of it (think cornstarch in cold water), but when the water is hot they swell up like balloons and merge with each other, and you have starch gelation.

Another thing you may want to add to the pasta water is some acid (lemon or cream of tartar). Tap water in most cities is made alkaline, which increases the starch loss from the pasta to the water, making the pasta stickier.

[Marcus]

Originally Posted by Architect

I found a quick few shots of whisky^* settled my nerves.....









^{It's never called "Scotch" in Scotland. Everyone knows the foreign stuff isn't really whisky. Hell, you can't even spell it right....}

[OT] I don't know what use you would have for whiskey or scotch, unless you have some tools to clean or something. Bourbon is the thing.[/OT]

[Marcus]

Originally Posted by bit_pattern

You don't use salt water to make the pasta cook faster but rather to make it more firm to the bite, the salt reduces gelation in the pasta and stops from turning sticky, and also for the taste of it.

http://cooking.stackexchange.com/que...-cooking-pasta

If you stop using salt (because of hypertension) you may find that after a while you don't even like it anymore. Salt just ruins the pasta for me, it's much better with plain water.

[bit_pattern]

I only use enough that you can only just taste in in the pasta but it really does change the texture. I'd never give up on cooking it in salted water. I don't think there'd be a huge amount of salt absorbed tbh and the only other salt in the meal will usually come from the cheese or the olives, I never add it to the sauce. It's all about balance I reckon.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by NeilC

I don't understand?

You said, "Maybe you were remembering that it boils food faster."

Language is imperfect. Now that you say you meant, "cooks" food faster I see your meaning was different than I initially interpreted it which was "boils faster" when cooking food.

[ZirconBlue]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

And maybe you have the same false memory that affects me and jt512.

Like I said, I'm all for an alternate authoritative source to explain this matter, but the links so far say the opposite.

These are 2 different questions:

(A) How long does it take the water to come to a boil? and
(2) How long does it take food to cook once the water is billing?

Adding salt would increase (A) but decrease (2). But, then, as has already been pointed out, the amount of salt under discussion probably would not have a significant effect on either. Certainly beans would not take "twice as long to cook" in salted water, which was the original comment that sparked this discussion.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by bit_pattern

You don't use salt water to make the pasta cook faster but rather to make it more firm to the bite, the salt reduces gelation in the pasta and stops from turning sticky, and also for the taste of it.....

I've always thought the salt made the pasta less sticky. Thanks for confirming that was not a myth.

I found, however, that water does boil faster with salt in it and why. The first link I found was wrong.

This is from a link from the Mad Scientists site.

Quote:

The time it takes a bucket of liquid to boil is controlled by essentially three things. The first is how much heat or energy you put into the bucket. The second is how fast the temperature rises in response to the heat input (the liquid's heat capacity), and the third is the boiling point of the liquid. Assuming that we can control our stoves and add the same amount of energy to each pot, this variable becomes insignificant.

The boiling point of water does rise if you add salt to it, but only by about 2°C (4°F) to 102°C (216°F). Remember, water boils at 100°C (212°F). This is an insignificant change for adding such a large amount of salt. For you science nerds out there, the boiling point increase is calculated using the "ebullioscopic" constant of water. This leads us to the important variable, how fast water or salt water heats up, or the solution's heat capacity.

The heat capacity of water is very high. What this means is that it takes a lot of energy to raise the temperature of water 1°C; in fact, the calorie is defined as the amount of energy that it takes to heat one gram of water to 1°C....

...If you look at the heat capacity of salt water, you will find that it is less than pure water. In other words, it takes less energy to raise the temperature of the salt water 1°C than pure water. This means that the salt water heats up faster and eventually gets to its boiling point first.

Why does salt water have a lower heat capacity? If you look at 100 grams of pure water, it contains 100 grams of water, but 100 grams of 20 percent salt water only contains 80 grams of water. The other 20 grams is the dissolved salt. The heat capacity of dissolved salt is almost zero when compared to the high heat capacity of water. This means that the heat capacity of a 20-percent salt solution is 80 percent that of pure water. Twenty percent salt water will heat up almost 25 percent faster than pure water and will win the speed race to the boiling point.

Of course 20% salt to get this effect is not what we get adding a couple teaspoons to the pasta water.

But this better explains the common memories we have about adding salt to water you are trying to boil. So it raises the temperature at which the water boils but lowers the amount of energy it takes to reach that higher temperature.


Glad we cleared that up.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Marcus

If you stop using salt (because of hypertension) you may find that after a while you don't even like it anymore. Salt just ruins the pasta for me, it's much better with plain water.

Interesting. I hate lumpy spaghetti. Does your spaghetti lump up without the salt? (I do rinse my pasta.)

[Marcus]

Originally Posted by bit_pattern

I only use enough that you can only just taste in in the pasta but it really does change the texture. I'd never give up on cooking it in salted water. I don't think there'd be a huge amount of salt absorbed tbh and the only other salt in the meal will usually come from the cheese or the olives, I never add it to the sauce. It's all about balance I reckon.

It's not a problem for most people, just those who are using low sodium to control BP. Salted water, cheese and olives are all completely out of the question, I'm afraid. In my case I manage a compromise, I eat normal food on weekends but do 2 hour workouts to make up for it.

[Marcus]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Interesting. I hate lumpy spaghetti. Does your spaghetti lump up without the salt? (I do rinse my pasta.)

It doesn't lump or stick together and I don't rinse it either, I serve it hot and steaming after maybe 10 seconds in the strainer.

[sgtbaker]

Originally Posted by Marcus

It doesn't lump or stick together and I don't rinse it either, I serve it hot and steaming after maybe 10 seconds in the strainer.

I've never actually used salt with pasta. The only time mine gets lumpy is if I don't use enough water.

[Captain Canada]

Damn, I live above 40 degrees latitude, luckily we get green leafy vegetables sent up to The Great White North!

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

First they came for the Big Macs, but I did nothing, since I eat healthy.

Then they came for the doughnuts, and I did nothing, since I eat healthy.

Then they came for the cheese.

All seventeen rounds in the clip is what they got, hollow point.

Harvard is kindly invited to suck the infected teat of a syphlitic bovine.

It's kind of sickening, isn't it, that this is all embedded in a larger context of angry politicians trying to get elected leading the people on the latest angry crusade to ban this or that.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Beerina

It's kind of sickening, isn't it, that this is all embedded in a larger context of angry politicians trying to get elected leading the people on the latest angry crusade to ban this or that.

Where do you get this from? Are you referring to the politically influenced dairy recommendation that is in the government's food pyramid vs the non-political recommendation of an institution with the goal of promoting public health? Or do you think someone is talking about banning milk here?

I'm not sure what you are referring to.

[Morrigan]

Damn, this is depressing. I drink a lot of milk, ever since I was a child. I had no acne as a teenager, but as an adult I seem to have it a lot more often. Giving up milk for clearer skin sounds like a difficult sacrifice for me. But now I hear it's related to ovarian cancer? My mother died of that when she was 51. She was not an especially heavy milk drinker, but I recall that she consumed moderate amounts of dairy. If family history AND milk are related to ovarian cancer, I have a feeling I'm pretty much screwed.

Maybe I can try giving up milk for a few weeks, except the small dose in coffee, and see if it helps with acne? And see if I don't go crazy with craving a tall glass of milk any time I eat desserts or sweets. >_>

Another thing that annoys me is the Vitamin D dilemma: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritio...n-d/index.html
According to that page, dairy is a good source of Vitamin D, and there are few other sources beyond breakfast cereals and sunlight. I don't go out a lot and I have a redhead's skin tone so I get sunburnt really easily, so getting my vitamin from the sun is not really an option (especially during the Canadian winters where the sun sets at 4 PM and I tend to get up at... 2PM?). So that leaves dairy. Kind of a conundrum here. And no, I don't want to take vitamin supplements.

[sgtbaker]

Originally Posted by Morrigan

Damn, this is depressing. I drink a lot of milk, ever since I was a child. I had no acne as a teenager, but as an adult I seem to have it a lot more often. Giving up milk for clearer skin sounds like a difficult sacrifice for me. But now I hear it's related to ovarian cancer? My mother died of that when she was 51. She was not an especially heavy milk drinker, but I recall that she consumed moderate amounts of dairy. If family history AND milk are related to ovarian cancer, I have a feeling I'm pretty much screwed.

Maybe I can try giving up milk for a few weeks, except the small dose in coffee, and see if it helps with acne? And see if I don't go crazy with craving a tall glass of milk any time I eat desserts or sweets. >_>

Another thing that annoys me is the Vitamin D dilemma: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritio...n-d/index.html
According to that page, dairy is a good source of Vitamin D, and there are few other sources beyond breakfast cereals and sunlight. I don't go out a lot and I have a redhead's skin tone so I get sunburnt really easily, so getting my vitamin from the sun is not really an option (especially during the Canadian winters where the sun sets at 4 PM and I tend to get up at... 2PM?). So that leaves dairy. Kind of a conundrum here. And no, I don't want to take vitamin supplements.

For women, according to the study cited in the Harvard article, the correlation was found for women consuming three more more glasses of milk a day.

[Morrigan]

Oh, does it? That'll teach me to just skim those studies. I drink a lot of milk but not that much I guess. It depends on the day, and what I have to eat on that day. If I eat sweets that day, I probably end up consuming the equivalent of 3 or more glasses (how big are those glasses? if it's just 250 ml, eh, my glasses usually have more than that...), but if I don't, I barely touch milk at all. I wouldn't know what my daily "average" would be.

[ZirconBlue]

Originally Posted by Morrigan

Another thing that annoys me is the Vitamin D dilemma: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritio...n-d/index.html
According to that page, dairy is a good source of Vitamin D, and there are few other sources beyond breakfast cereals and sunlight. I don't go out a lot and I have a redhead's skin tone so I get sunburnt really easily, so getting my vitamin from the sun is not really an option (especially during the Canadian winters where the sun sets at 4 PM and I tend to get up at... 2PM?). So that leaves dairy. Kind of a conundrum here. And no, I don't want to take vitamin supplements.

Vitamin D is added to milk, and can now be found similarly added to other products like the various faux-milks (soy-, almond-, coconut-, etc) and orange juice.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by ZirconBlue

Vitamin D is added to milk, and can now be found similarly added to other products like the various faux-milks (soy-, almond-, coconut-, etc) and orange juice.

And is found in mushrooms of many sorts.

[rjh01]

Originally Posted by ZirconBlue

Vitamin D is added to milk, and can now be found similarly added to other products like the various faux-milks (soy-, almond-, coconut-, etc) and orange juice.

This depends on where you live. In Australia I have not seen it added to either milk or juice. If someone wants to buy a product with Vitamin D then they should check the ingredients list first.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Lisa Simpson, any updates for us on trying the milk substitutes for your son? Someone revived a related thread.

[TheAnachronism]

Originally Posted by stokes234

Urgh. Cheese has too much fat, milk should be limited or it can cause cancer, tuna contains too much mercury, and quorn is expensive. It's hard to find a convenient source of protein.

Is there a particular health reason you're worried about fat? Is it just fat from particular sources that worries you or particular types of fat (i.e. saturated, trans)?

I'm asking because many people are apparently shocked to learn, after being convinced for decades by various institutions that a low-fat diet encourages health, that the evidence for this is shoddy at best. In fact, it's becoming increasingly clear that eating a low-fat diet may be detrimental to one's health.

[Hazel]

Originally Posted by SalG13

I came across this article today which states that the Harvard School of Public Health has declared that dairy is not part of a healthy diet.

Intrigued, I went to Harvard's site and the article appears to be giving an accurate assessment.

I have heard that dairy isn't healthy for you in the past, but this was from a vegan friend who had made some sketchy claims about several other topics and I don't consider them a reliable source of information. Internet research tends to dig up claims from both sides, although the anti-dairy pages tend to be biased in that direction regardless.

Side note: I am getting an error message when I try to search these forums, so if someone has already posted about this topic or there is a thread about the value of dairy products in a person's diet I wasn't able to find it.

No more ice cream? So, meat isn't good for you (too much fat). Breads aren't good for you (too many carbs). Coffee, tea, sodas aren't good for you (too much caffeine). Chips aren't good for you (too much sodium). On and on they go. Just tell them to keep their cotton-pickin' hands off my chocolate! And I refuse to eat brocolli! So there!

[Drs_Res]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Just look at the dangerous lengths cheese addicts will go to get their fix!

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

That reminded me of this:

http://youtu.be/i8Df8YEBpgg

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[Eddie Dane]

Interesting.

I have radically cut down sugar, and it that has proven to be a great choice.

Is yoghurt also considered unhealthy? I love that stuff.

[sgtbaker]

Originally Posted by Eddie Dane

Interesting.

I have radically cut down sugar, and it that has proven to be a great choice.

Is yoghurt also considered unhealthy? I love that stuff.

Most (if not all) yogurts have artificial sweetener's in it but it's a highly recommended snack in most weight conscious eating plans. I think in the case for yogurt, the benefits outweigh the negatives.

[Hazel]

Originally Posted by Eddie Dane

Interesting.

I have radically cut down sugar, and it that has proven to be a great choice.

Is yoghurt also considered unhealthy? I love that stuff.

Yogurt is an excellent food for digestive problems. A half-cup daily and you know the difference immediately.

[Hazel]

Originally Posted by sgtbaker

Most (if not all) yogurts have artificial sweetener's in it but it's a highly recommended snack in most weight conscious eating plans. I think in the case for yogurt, the benefits outweigh the negatives.

Dannon's does not have artificial sweeteners, thank goodness.

[ZirconBlue]

Originally Posted by sgtbaker

Most (if not all) yogurts have artificial sweetener's in it . . . .

I am very skeptical of this claim. It is certainly not true where I live. Only the products labelled "light" or "sugar-free" tend to have artificial sweeteners. The bulk of the products in the yogurt aisle of my local grocery store, including the majority of the "Greek" yogurts, do not contain artificial sweeteners.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by NeilC

Reading the Harvard info I'm not really clear that they are saying milk is bad for you. They are saying that milk can help prevent some cancers and is a good source of calcium and then they are saying that "large quantities of dairy products" are linked to some diseases, mostly because they are high in fat. They say to limit intake to 1 or 2 portions a day.

What I cannot work out is their position on low fat milk or other low fat dairy products. Where is the evidence they are causing disease? It seems inconsistent and lacking in evidence.

You're right... It seems like they're lumping in all dairy products (skim, 2% and homogenized) into one monolithic 'dairy' category. (The link provided by excasa in post #2 states "dairy products can be high in saturated fat", an issue that shouldn't be of concern for those drinking skim milk.) I think even the USDA recommends using skim milk.

They also pointed out the problem of getting too much vitamin A, but just like any food source, its usually when people go 'overboard' which is the problem.

[Hazel]

One problem with foods containing artificial sweeteners is that the labels are not always using the common names by which we recognize them: Splenda, Saccharin, Aspertame, etc. They are using the generic chemical terms which people do not recognize and, therefore, do not realize they are getting artificial sweeteners. I just make sure it says "sugar". Even corn syrup gets into my basket. But, I avoid artificial sweeteners and, if possible to recognize them, artificial fats. Some ice creams have artificial fats. A doctor who had a column in our local paper once wrote an article about artificial fats. He listed some of the worst. I wish so much I had saved that column.

[Tatyana]

Originally Posted by SalG13

I came across this article today which states that the Harvard School of Public Health has declared that dairy is not part of a healthy diet.

Intrigued, I went to Harvard's site and the article appears to be giving an accurate assessment.

I have heard that dairy isn't healthy for you in the past, but this was from a vegan friend who had made some sketchy claims about several other topics and I don't consider them a reliable source of information. Internet research tends to dig up claims from both sides, although the anti-dairy pages tend to be biased in that direction regardless.

Side note: I am getting an error message when I try to search these forums, so if someone has already posted about this topic or there is a thread about the value of dairy products in a person's diet I wasn't able to find it.

No it doesn't.

It says look for multiple sources for calcium.

[Hazel]

There is one caution about the industry adding calcium to everything. It is possible to get too much calcium. Just one more reason to keep our foods natural, the way they grow, and stop playing around with them.

[sgtbaker]

Originally Posted by ZirconBlue

I am very skeptical of this claim. It is certainly not true where I live. Only the products labelled "light" or "sugar-free" tend to have artificial sweeteners. The bulk of the products in the yogurt aisle of my local grocery store, including the majority of the "Greek" yogurts, do not contain artificial sweeteners.

That is really bad wording on my part. Sugar is a natural sweetener. I was thinking artificial as in sugars (natural or not) are added for a sweeter flavor. Thank you for pointing that out.

[ZirconBlue]

Originally Posted by sgtbaker

That is really bad wording on my part. Sugar is a natural sweetener. I was thinking artificial as in sugars (natural or not) are added for a sweeter flavor. Thank you for pointing that out.

Ah, yes, that's much clearer. Yeah, I think the only nonsweetened yogurt is typically "plain".

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally Posted by Hazel

Dannon's does not have artificial sweeteners, thank goodness.

Are you sure about that?

http://www.dannon.com/pages/rt_healt...our_yogurt.htm

[sgtbaker]

Originally Posted by ZirconBlue

Ah, yes, that's much clearer. Yeah, I think the only nonsweetened yogurt is typically "plain".

I once read that a cup of yogurt and a banana will get rid of bloating. As it turns out, I can't freakin find plain yogurt anywhere!