Avoiding milk during pregnancy = bad?

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by MacsomJRR, Apr 25, 2006.

  1. MacsomJRR macrumors 6502a

    MacsomJRR

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2003
    Location:
    San Diego
    #1
    http://www.medpagetoday.com/OBGYN/Pregnancy/tb/3158

    I dunno bout the rest of you but this seems like a bunch of nonsense.

    "The women with lower milk intake gave birth to infants who weighed less compared with those of mothers who consumed more milk (3,410 grams versus 3,530 grams; P=.07). Although birth weights were generally in the healthy range for both groups, the trend suggests caution, Dr. Koski said."

    A difference of 100 grams with a p value greater than 0.05? Plus 72 pregnant women contacted daily to find out what they had eaten so that vitamin D and nutrient intake could be ESTIMATED? Could this be any more bogus?

    Got milk? or rather Got Funded By Milk?;)
     
  2. emw macrumors G4

    emw

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    #2
    Yeah, the P value greater than .05 shows it's not statistically significant, correct?

    In any case, I wonder if the study accounted for the growth hormones commonly used to spur milk production and if that impacts fetail weight or health. My wife has had milk for each of her pregnancies (growth hormone-free) and neither of our kids was exceptionally large. 6 lbs 6 oz for one, 7 lbs 13 oz for the other.
     
  3. MacsomJRR thread starter macrumors 6502a

    MacsomJRR

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2003
    Location:
    San Diego
    #3
    Excellent point.

    You are correct regarding p values too although they are a little controversial;)
     
  4. Le Big Mac macrumors 68020

    Le Big Mac

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #4
    I'm trying to remember my statistics, but given the high variation in birthweights, you'd need a lot of moms to get a statistically significant difference of 100 grams (~4 oz.). That is, since birthweights range from say 6 to 9 pounds in ordinary cases (obviously preemies and fatties also), there's a normal range of 48 oz., so detecting a difference of only 4 oz. probably requires more than 72 moms.

    That said, is it surprising that moms who have better nutrition, one component of which is drinking milk during pregnancy as opposed to, say, soda, have kids with higher birthweights?
     
  5. evoluzione macrumors 68020

    evoluzione

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2002
    Location:
    down the road, that's where i'll always be
    #5


    exactly. organic growth hormone free milk should also be included in this report.

    personally i stay away from anything that has stuff like that in it, it really cannot be good can it?
     
  6. Raid macrumors 68020

    Raid

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    Toronto
    #6
    Well that depends on your confidence interval, but I don't want to complicate things any more by explaining confidence intervals. :cool:

    Here's a pretty good summary of the interpretation of a p-value I found on google.

    In economic regressions a 5% p-value is considered iffy but generally accepted if you have a small number of observations. From what I've read here I wouldn't put too much faith in the conclusions, the estimates of vitamin D intake, and the smallish number of observations would leave this very open to debate.

    I wonder if they asked lactose intollerant moms-to-be in the study? :cool:
     
  7. Nuc macrumors 6502a

    Nuc

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2003
    Location:
    TN
    #7
    At an alpha=0.05 you would conclude that the weight of babies are the same since the p-value is 0.07. However if alpha =0.1 and since the p-value is 0.07 you conclude that there is significant evidence that there is a difference in the babies weight.

    I think I got that right...

    Nuc
     
  8. gekko513 macrumors 603

    gekko513

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
  9. Mord macrumors G4

    Mord

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2003
    Location:
    UK
    #9
    i dont like milk, i was milk protine intollerent from 0-16.5 it wares off a bit after puberty and milk is rubbish compared to rice milk.
     
  10. MacsomJRR thread starter macrumors 6502a

    MacsomJRR

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2003
    Location:
    San Diego
    #10
    That's one of the first things I thought of too. You are left to assume that babies who are 100g lighter are statistically at an increased risk to suffer from neonatel illnesses.

    And I'm sorry but...

    "Because fortified milk provides an important source of vitamin D and calcium, as well as contributing to adequate protein intake, a general recommendation to restrict milk consumption during pregnancy is "clearly ill-advised," the authors said, especially for women living at latitudes that don't receive enough sunlight to allow sufficient dermal conversion of vitamin D via exposure of skin to sunlight."

    ...is just as silly. Mothers who don't spend enough time in the sun perhaps but bringing "latitude" into the equation just makes the researchers sound like they reaching for anything they can. The whole article is just a MedPage Today milk commercial.
     
  11. evoluzione macrumors 68020

    evoluzione

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2002
    Location:
    down the road, that's where i'll always be
    #11

    in the USA they are, everything's better if it's bigger, except Apple's gadgets.

    sad but true
     
  12. OutThere macrumors 603

    OutThere

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2002
    Location:
    NYC
    #12
    Yep.

    the alpha level is the 'cutoff point'.

    With a p of 0.07, at alpha = 0.05, the babies' weights are statistically the same (0.07>0.05), at alpha = 0.10 (0.07<0.10), there is statistical significance.


    The study on the whole, however, is rubbish, as far as I can tell. It was done with estimates of intakes over the phone...I mean come on.

    You'd have much stronger evidence by taking a smaller sample and giving them more individualized attention and controlling conditions. It looks like this would be the place for an experiment rather than an observational study. Too many confounding variables present that they had no control over. :rolleyes:
     
  13. MOFS macrumors 65816

    MOFS

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    Durham, UK
    #13
    Ummm...in any study like this a set of screening questions would have been asked to prevent anyone with such an allergy being entered into the study.
     
  14. Raid macrumors 68020

    Raid

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    Toronto
    #14
    My point is you can get vitamin D from a variety of sources in your diet...which I think they did try and estimate, but it's not that clear. Furthermore the whole 'healthier babies are from Moms that drink more milk' undertone is pretty commercial. Especially given the statisticaly weak association between vitamin D intake and birthweight.


    Maybe it's part of a Cow Conspiracy, or Milk Moovement... :D
     

Share This Page