I saw that too, but it's the wrong journal - the one they (supposedly) reference is from the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health (which is the 2001 paper), not the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
On second glance, it does look like the 2004 one is the actual study they're talking about in this article, but without comparing the raw numbers (which I'm too lazy to do), it's too difficult to tell which one they're using - the studies say basically the same thing.
So I bet you're right and that's the one, in which case, WAY TO MESS UP THE REFERENCE, MISTER "HEALTH" AUTHOR.
Also... just glancing over the 2004 study, it does seem to have controlled for all the right things (lifestyle, caloric intake, additional risk factors, etc). The only thing it didn't do is control for fat/non-fat milk drinkers, but they wave some numbers around and claim it doesn't really matter.
Exactly---LOL :-)
it does seem to have controlled for all the right things (lifestyle, caloric intake, additional risk factors, etc
(I wish I could view articles that quickly! Is this reprinted on the internet somewhere or actually available online from the publisher? Most of them are so bloody expensive...and I have to rely on glacial interlibrary loan.)
I wonder if the lifestyle factors included a global assessment of the diet---I mean, not just caloric intake but quantities of fruits and vegetables. Extra calcium, magnesium, potassium from fruits and veggies could certainly make a difference.