Has this come up here in the last couple of days?
Interesting article. It seems everything we thought was bad for health one time becomes good another time.
Definitely the worst statement from a scientist studying the microfora I heard is “I didn’t expect to find anything in the cheese that would change the microflora.”. EVERY single food we eat affects the microflora i.e. you are what you eat.
Thanks for sharing!
I find articles like this one interesting because this and others like it always seem to "prove" what people have "known" for hundreds of years.
"Why do we do it that way?" Because after generations of cumulative experience we've decided that's the best way,.
In French culture cheese was/is served last, most likely for digestive reasons. One of the many examples of long term culture knowing the answer and science explaining it later.
This also reminds me of the egg scare in the late eighties. Because of some scientific study, eggs and cholesterol were suddenly horrifically bad. The fact that humans have been eating eggs since forever didn't seem to matter. Then they became okay again because of further research.
I've given up listening when anyone announces "There's a new study that states "…."
I also remember the human behavioral study that "proved" that when something takes longer than people expect it to, they get impatient. Lots of scientific jargon for not much news.
So now cheese is good for you? I think this is only news to the scientists who did the study.
Exactly chefwriter, as some of my professors admonished us back in the day, "9 of 10 studies making it through the peer review aren't worth the ink needed to pen the first draft." There are many reasons for this, most having to do with predatory self-interest, most often combined with gross mediocrity of mind.
How can we really be critical of the research when mostly we are seeing just a report about it in the popular press, but more so what we are seeing is a bunch of ads. I'd enjoy reading the research before casting judgment. Even though the conclusion may be somewhat intuitive, in general more data is good for learning because it leads better understanding... or if nothing else, validation that the intuitive knowledge is worthy of being intuitive knowledge.
Well the point is, in general, that in fields such as psychology and nutrition, there are predatory self interests at work and tons of studies presenting fudged data that contradict the more credulous material. I have been doing research in these fields for over 30 years now so I know whereof I speak. To simplify the situation, those in the conventional health professions dealing directly with the public love the idea of creating contexts in which manageable crisis can be maintained. You can actually also find the same manner of vermin practicing the alternatives.
As far as what studies to look for here, you want of course to see a large sample group, and unbiased authors, in this case something like a team of biologists working independently of any hospitals and self-interest groups in general.
There have been plenty of validating studies for the products of fermentation and their beneficial as well as detrimental effects. I personally was not answering to anything in the article as I have not even read it yet. Googling the subject should bring up lots of studies, and if the full study is not available for free online, many libraries can supply them to you free. Happy hunting.
PS Just a few things of interest here: There are 2 types of milk cows, A-1 and A-2 producing, milk from the latter is much healthier for humans; goat and sheep milk is much healthier for you also; any milk product heated over 120F looses its enzyme content, in the case of cheese this loss will greatly increase its value as a digestive tract irritant, which is why those with ulcers, for one, are recommended not to eat such.
I read the article, and imo, there are more holes than a slice of Swiss cheese. Where are the Italians (Italy) in this comparison - & the rest of the world?
"More research is needed, but in this paper—funded in part by Arla Foods (a Danish food company that produces dairy products) and the Danish Dairy Research Foundation—Danish scientists analyzed data from 15 healthy young men who ate three diets for two weeks..."
Biased, don'tcha think. IMO, there are too many factors not included or considered.
Ya, even we in the hard sciences have our moments, a lot of advertising nonsense in consumer products and such things as planned obsolescence (really not our doing for the most part), and material that rarely sees the light of day and is only published for the sake of making publishing quotas in academia, or duping the gov into forking over doe that will actually be put to other projects. Those in the field really aren't fooled by any of this. Absolutely nothing like what you find in the health professions, particularly psychology where there is often little consensus on best practices and their is widespread ignorance of essential principles, which can also simply go ignored for convenience sake. Really hideous and hideously predatory practices, right from the top down and the bottom up.
15 person study group which I' guessing also included the control group(s), major self-interest groups behind it, yes Cerise, I guess we can forego making any definite conclusions here.