Posted on 08/09/2010 11:26:00 AM PDT by Ben Mugged
A US study shows that almost one in four black girls and one in 10 white girls had developed breasts by the age of seven.
The findings are the latest in a string of studies showing that girls in the US are reaching puberty sooner, with implications both for the social and emotional wellbeing of girls as well as for their physical health in later life. Early maturation has been shown to cause low self-esteem and doubts about body image, as well as greater rates of eating problems, depression and attempted suicide.
It is linked to earlier sexual experiences, and later on carries greater risks of breast cancer.
The researchers found that at the age of seven 23.4% of black girls, 14.9% of Hispanics and 10.4% of white girls had developed breasts.
At 8 those proportions had risen further to 42.9%, 30.9% and 18.3% respectively.
A similar survey completed in 1997 found the proportion of white girls who had developed breasts by seven was 5% — half of what it is today.
The proportion of black girls in that bracket has also shot up in the past decade, from 15% in 1997 to 23% today.
Studies have shown that in the 1700s girls began menstruation on average at about age 17-18, though that might be as much to do with widespread malnutrition as with other factors.
Experts point to several possible causes of the declining age of puberty.
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
That's nonsense. Your body produces all the enzymes it requires and pasteurized milk does not kill the lactase in your gut. Or, are you trying to claim that cow's milk contains both lactose and lactase? Good grief.
Avoid the crap they pawn off as substitutes for babies. All generally bad, especially the soy based products.
So if a baby or toddler is unable to consume cow's milk, they should just avoid milk altogether? Even though soy is an excellent source of protein and the fact that soy milk has been used successfully in Asian countries for centuries?
He claims there is no fructose in sucrose, so don’t expect much in the way of science from him.
I believe the same as you. I try to avoid soy at all costs. Read one article that stated feeding an infant all soy milk is like giving them 5 birth control pills everyday! Also, soy retards growth in men in places where they want a LOT of growth ;). The process soy has to go through just to become EDIBLE should make you stop and go WHAT?
“The early onset of puberty is being caused by an increase in average body weight. It has nothing to do with milk, organic or otherwise.”
You are entitled to your opinion.
I am writing from personal family experience. Of course it is “anecdotal evidence”, as the medical scientists would put it.
But then there is this:
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2010-08/10/c_13438812.htm
By the way, the person I know who changing to organic milk worked for (reversed symptoms of premature puberty) was very thin.
That “body weight” dog won’t hunt. Believe it or not it’s the milk!
No, you're confused. You offered opinion backed up by nothing but feelings. I offered facts supported by years of research. Bovine hormones cannot interface with human hormone receptors. That is a scientific fact. Bovine growth hormones are specific to cows/cattle. That is also a scientific fact.
I am writing from personal family experience.
How could you possibly know from personal family experience that bovine hormones were binding with human hormone receptors and that it was causing early onset puberty?
But then there is this:
First, are you certain that this is a real story? If so, is this problem being caused by someone adding bovine growth hormones to the infant formula or human (female) growth hormones? If you had to guess, what would you say.....knowing now that bovine hormones are specific to cows only.
Great. Have you ever heard the old adage about cause and correlation?
That “body weight” dog won’t hunt. Believe it or not it’s the milk!
No one knowledgeable in this subject believes for a second that early onset puberty is caused by hormones in milk.
Do you really believe that organic milk doesn't contain bovine somatotropin? If so, you need to find new sources for your information.
Boiling or steaming soybeans (edamame), or anything else for that matter, makes you stop and go WHAT?
That's different.
“No one knowledgeable in this subject believes for a second that early onset puberty is caused by hormones in milk.”
Are you a dairy farmer? LOL
Maybe you should be an expert witness for China’s health ministry. They seem to have their hands full with people who don’t share your opinion.
Do dairy farmers, unlike yourself, understand that cow hormones will only bind with cow hormone receptors and not human hormone receptors? If so, they know a lot more than you and won't buy into the idiocy of milk causing early onset puberty.
They seem to have their hands full with people who don’t share your opinion.
You're surprised that they have idiots in China too? I'll bet their idiots don't know the difference between an opinion and a fact either.
Childhood obesity is one culprit. Estrogen in food products is another.
Bunch of tree huggers worried about “nasty” chemicals in the food supply. Dirty hippies.
“You’re surprised that they have idiots in China too? I’ll bet their idiots don’t know the difference between an opinion and a fact either.”
I wouldn’t call you an idiot; just quite arrogant. The people in China would be idiots if they didn’t believe their own eyes; but of course they do.
My local conventional supermarket doesn’t sell much organic food. There’s not much demand for it ... except for milk. They sell four different brands of organic milk, and it now takes up almost as much shelf space as cheaper conventional milk.
While the hormones in conventional milk may be chemically identical to those in organic milk, conventional dairy farmers may give large amounts of those synthetic hormones to their cows to induce continuous milk production. Some say all those hormones are inactivated by pasteurization, but ... people tend to believe their own eyes.
“Facts” in medicine are very difficult to establish. So the average intelligent person pays attention to their own observations and forms opinions which are correct more often than not. I don’t need a double-blinded placebo controlled medical study to convince me that coenzyme q10 supplementation is beneficial for cardiomyopathy and congestive heart failure, because I have seen with my own eyes people brought back from the brink of death; people given days to live by their board-certified cardiologist who lived for years. I have a somewhat less certain opinion that something in conventional milk causes premature puberty. And judging by the organic milk sales at my local supermarket, and the news story from China, I’m probably not the only one that holds that “unscientific” opinion.
And you will remain quite certain of the “science” that says that it is just not possible ... until some new science is finally discovered!
“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
Hamlet, Act 1 Scene V
And what they're seeing is probably caused by the addition of female sex hormones to the milk. Why? Because, once again, bovine hormones cannot bind with hormone receptors in humans. Ain't. Gonna. Happen.
conventional dairy farmers may give large amounts of those synthetic hormones to their cows to induce continuous milk production.
Yes, they do. This synthetic hormone (rBST) is identical to the hormone produced by the cows naturally.
Some say all those hormones are inactivated by pasteurization, but ... people tend to believe their own eyes.
The hormones are inactivated by pasteurization? I've never heard that. Even so, for anything you've said to be right -- or for your own eyes to be right, you're going to have to show us that hormones specific to cows are able to bind with human hormone receptors. You can't do it because it isn't possible. Your eyes are lying to you.
You can believe in something that hasn't been proven, even after multitudes of studies, but those of us who choose to live in the real world will continue basing our understanding of a subject on what we know to be true. Some people will continue to believe in the things they want to believe. As you sort of said earlier, you are entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts. Fear always springs from ignorance.
“He claims there is no fructose in sucrose...”
Sucrose is a disaccharide that yields 1 equiv of glucose and 1 equiv of fructose on acidic hydrolysis. This 1:1 mixture of glucose and fructose is often referred to as invert sugar, since the sign of optical rotation changes (inverts) during the hydrolysis from sucrose ([alpha]D = +66.5o) to a glucose fructose mixture ([alpha]D = -22.0o).
The fact that acidic hydrolysis breaks down the sucrose molecule into fructose and glucose does mean that sucrose is a ‘mixture’ of fructose and glucose. The acidic hydrolysis that breaks sucrose down is a chemical reaction.
High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) causes weight gain and obesity that sucrose, table sugar, does not cause.
“A Princeton University research team has demonstrated that all sweeteners are not equal when it comes to weight gain: Rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than those with access to table sugar, even when their overall caloric intake was the same.”
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/
In another study, researcher’s found that cancer cells slurp up fructose. to quote, “Pancreatic tumor cells use fructose to divide and proliferate, U.S. researchers said on Monday in a study that challenges the common wisdom that all sugars are the same. Tumor cells fed both glucose and fructose used the two sugars in two different ways, the team at the University of California Los Angeles found. They said their finding, published in the journal Cancer Research, may help explain other studies that have linked fructose intake with pancreatic cancer, one of the deadliest cancer types.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/idAFN0210830520100802
Mr Toddster... you might want to take a Chemistry 101 refresher course...:)
Excellent! So once it breaks down in your stomach, what do you have?
Read the studies and tell me HFCS and sucrose are all the same thing...er, no, tell yourself. And I am curious, why are you so defensive about HFCS? What part of Corperate America are you trying to protect.?
But go for the HFCS all you want for yourself and your family...it does the body good, you know, and it is especially good for your pancreas, liver and heart. /s
Whoops! My bad....about an hour after posting that I realized I was thinking about something else....need more coffee! Can’t remember the name of what it was...had something to do with vegetarian ‘meatless’ patties/etc.
Why would I tell you something that isn't so?
When you eat HFCS 42, you have a mixture of glucose and fructose in your stomach. When you eat sucrose, you very quickly have a mixture of glucose and fructose in your stomach. How does your stomach (and liver) tell the difference between fructose from the poison source, HFCS and fructose from the healthy source, sucrose?
And I am curious, why are you so defensive about HFCS?
I'm not, but when Freepers say something stupid, it makes FR look bad.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.