text: When your body does not have enough lactase, an enzyme necessary for digestion of the natural sugar found in milk and other dairy products, you are said to be lactose intolerant. Now, a new study comparing pasteurized milk and raw milk, which some people claim can reduce symptoms of the condition, finds that raw milk fails to reduce lactose intolerance symptoms. “These data do not support the widespread claim that raw milk confers benefits in reducing the discomfort of lactose intolerance,” wrote the authors at the conclusion of their research published in Annals of Family Medicine. 
   
   Nearly 30 percent of Americans are considered to have problems digesting milk and milk products, though some groups are more prone than others. In particular, 90 percent of Asian-Americans and 80 percent of African-Americans are said to be lactose intolerant, while far fewer Americans of northern European descent are bothered by this condition. Older adults as well are more likely to be troubled than those who are younger. Anywhere from 30 minutes to two hours after eating dairy products, a lactose intolerant person will develop stomach cramps and diarrhea, the two symptoms that must be present for an official diagnosis. These symptoms result from a buildup of gas caused by undigested lactose, the natural raw sugar found in milk. 
   
   To see whether raw milk can reduce symptoms of lactose intolerance, Stanford researchers enrolled 16 adults with confirmed lactose intolerance and lactose malabsorption. Each participant drank three types of milk for eight days each: organic whole raw milk, organic whole pasteurized milk, and plain soy milk. The raw milk was an organic, grade A whole milk produced by Organic Pastures; the pasteurized milk was an organic, grade A whole milk produced by Horizon Organic; and the soy milk was organic, Soy Dream Original Classic brand produced by the Hain Celestial Group. Each eight-day treatment phase was preceded by a washout phase of one week during which time the participants avoided dairy and lactose-containing products. 
   
   What did the researchers discover? “Raw milk failed to reduce lactose malabsorption or lactose intolerance symptoms compared with pasteurized milk among adults positive for lactose malabsorption,” wrote the authors. “Although other health benefit claims for raw milk are plausible, such claims remain similarly anecdotal and unsubstantiated and should be subjected to appropriately designed controlled trials.” Take-home nugget? Beware the anecdotal claim. 
   
   Source: Mummah S, Oelrich B, Hope J, Vu Q, Gardner C. Effect of Raw Milk on Lactose Intolerance: A Randomized Controlled Pilot Study. Annals of Family Medicine. 2014. ||||| It's not a daft fad to be milk intolerant - it's in our genes 
   
   For 3 million lactose intolerant Britons a glass of milk it is not welcome 
   
   But a genetic mutation in the majority means they can enjoy it for years 
   
   By Guy Walters 
   
   | 
   
   When archaeologists investigated two 7,000-year-old corpses unearthed in Spain in 2006, they made two startling discoveries. 
   
   
   
   One of the two Mesolithic hunter-gatherers had carried African and European genes, which meant he had dark skin and blue eyes. But there was an even more amazing revelation from the scientists when they announced the results of their research last month. 
   
   
   
   The man's genes also showed he was lactose intolerant. 
   
   This is a condition in which the body has difficulty in absorbing the sugar that is commonly found in milk. 
   
   For 3m people in the UK a glass of cow juice is about as welcome as being force-fed cod liver oil 
   
   A problem drinking milk? What sort of hunter-gatherer was this? Surely food intolerances are a bit modern and namby-pamby? 
   
   Well, I can identify strongly with this Mesolithic milk dodger, as I too suffer from lactose intolerance. I'm one of the estimated three million people in the UK for whom a glass of cow juice is about as welcome as being force-fed cod liver oil. 
   
   
   
   Much to my regret, I only discovered that I had the condition last year, when I was going on a punitive three-day hike through the Yorkshire Dales with a good friend. At one point, as we were puffing up a particularly strenuous climb, he turned to me and observed, 'You do realise that you burp ALL the time?' 
   
   At first, I was in denial. Surely everybody burps a lot? Maybe I was just bad at hiding it. But by the time we reached the peak, I started to wonder - not least for the sake of my friendship - whether I did have something wrong with me. What happened next was like something out of a film, albeit one that goes straight to video. 
   
   
   
   On a distant dale, I saw some cows. There they were, munching away, and the sight of them suddenly made me realise: Of course, it was milk. Wretched milk. 
   
   
   
   Until then, I had dismissed people who claim to have intolerances as being vain and self-important. I'm not talking about those with allergies, which are clearly serious, and can be life-threatening. I'm referring to those annoying people who carp on about being intolerant to this and that, when they are in fact just fussy eaters. 
   
   A genetic mutation in the majority of the population means the ability to drink milk can be enjoyed for years 
   
   But it was time to confront my prejudices. I was going to give up milk. No more breakfast cereal, no more milk in my tea and coffee. The idea of giving up my cherished daily bowl of Grape Nuts seemed appalling, but I had to give it a try. 
   
   
   
   Within about two days, my belching had almost vanished. There was no more effervescence, my guts no longer painfully bloated with gas. 
   
   
   
   There was no doubt that milk was the culprit. 
   
   I had cracked it, although I did curse that I had not kicked the milk churn decades before. All those years of subjecting friends and family to constant burping, all that discomfort needlessly endured, and all because I hadn't tolerated those with intolerances. 
   
   Initially, I kept quiet about the whole business, as I didn't want to be a dietary bore. And then I came across the startling fact that 75 per cent of the world has some degree of lactose intolerance. It was another cow-on-a-distant-dale moment. Hang on, I thought, you people who can drink milk, it's you who are the weird ones! Not me, I'm the normal one. 
   
   As it turns out, the ability to tolerate lactose is really only found in people in northern Europe, North America and in pockets in the Middle East and western and southern Africa. If you go anywhere else, you'll find that everybody is like me and Mesolithic Man. 
   
   Why is this? The answer lies in the enzyme lactase, which breaks down the lactose in milk. Although all of us are born with lactase, after about the age of two, the levels in our small intestines diminish rapidly for most people, which makes it hard for lactose to be broken down, and therefore causes discomfort, which is often manifested by burping. 
   
   But in countries such as the UK, a genetic mutation in the majority of the population means that lactase persists, and therefore the ability to drink milk can be enjoyed for many decades after infancy. 
   
   Last month, British scientists who have studied the residue in cooking pots from archaeological digs estimated that this mutation may have taken place 6,000 years ago. 
   
   Opinion is divided as to why this mutation which allows some of us to drink milk took place. Some suggest that when our ancestors started to consume dairy produce, they built up a tolerance which altered their genes. Others think that the mutation happened before mammalian milk was drunk, and it allowed dairy consumption to take place. 
   
   12g 
   
   The amount of lactose adults with intolerance can cope with in a day. It's equivalent to a glass of milk 
   
   But for people like me, it doesn't really matter what came first. I want to know the health implications. After all, it's drummed into us from an early age that milk is an essential part of our diet, chiefly because all that calcium is good for our bones. 
   
   'There are no serious health consequences of being lactose intolerant,' says Professor John Mayberry, a gastroenterologist at the University Hospitals of Leicester, 'and you should remember that for much of the world it's quite normal. There's no increased risk of any diseases.' 
   
   You should also remember milk does not have a monopoly on calcium, which is found in broccoli, cabbage, soya beans and nuts. And just because you are lactose intolerant, it does not mean you have to give up cheese, as the fermentation process significantly reduces lactose levels. 
   
   Although Professor Mayberry confirms that my self-diagnosis is perfectly valid and safe, there are more medically rigorous tests you can take should you suspect lactose intolerance. 
   
   'Potentially, you can submit to a whole series of investigations,' says Professor Mayberry. 'But the most simple and least invasive is the hydrogen breath test, in which the level of hydrogen in your breath is measured after you have drunk some lactose solution.' 
   
   
   
   The test is done at a hospital and you need a GP referral. 
   
   Hydrogen is one of the gases so charmingly emitted by the likes of me after drinking milk - bacteria in the gut produce hydrogen in reaction to unabsorbed food, and if your levels of hydrogen are 20 parts per million higher after drinking the lactose solution, then you're lactose intolerant. 
   
   
   
   In my experience, that figure seems low. At times, I could have sworn I was expelling pure hydrogen. 
   
   Another common test is to measure the levels of glucose in your blood after drinking lactose. The lactase enzyme breaks down lactose into glucose - so if your glucose either rises slowly, or not at all after drinking lactose, it's a sign of lactose intolerance. 
   
   Guy has enough lactase in his small intestine to be able to cope with milk in tea 
   
   Again, this hospital test needs a referral from your GP. 
   
   Although Professor Mayberry's words are reassuring, for some, a lactose intolerance can actually be a symptom of something more serious. 
   
   
   
   A deficiency of lactase can be caused by inflammatory bowel diseases such as Crohn's and ulcerative colitis, but as these also present other more serious symptoms such as weight loss, bleeding and mucus, a diagnosis of lactose intolerance alone is no reason to be alarmed. 
   
   
   
   But those who smugly think they can consume lactose for the rest of their lives should also think again. 'Lactase starts to diminish in a lot of people in their 60s and 70s,' says Professor Mayberry, 'which is why older people find they cannot eat certain food any more. 
   
   
   
   'Lactose isn't just present in milk, but it's used in all sorts of foods, such as whitener in loaves of bread.' 
   
   I've now started to reintroduce milk in a small way. I now take it in tea and coffee, and like many with lactose intolerance, I have just enough lactase in my small intestine to be able to cope with these amounts. 
   
   For the time being, I appear not to have passed on my intolerance to my children, who are both nearly in double figures, and seem able to drink milk with impunity. 
   
   ||||| A pilot study failed to show something many people believe – that drinking raw milk reduces the symptoms of lactose intolerance or malabsorption. 
   
   The condition is common worldwide, and can lead to bloating, abdominal pain and diarrhea. But the specific prevalence of lactose intolerance is not known, the researchers from Stanford University said. 
   
   Current coping strategies include not drinking milk, drinking lactose-free dairy products, taking lactase enzyme tablets and other behaviors, but none of those eliminate the symptoms, the researchers wrote. 
   
   “Recently, unpasteurized raw milk consumption has increased in popularity and emerged into a nationwide movement despite the acknowledgment of risks associated" with pathogens, the researchers wrote this week in the Annals of Family Medicine. 
   
   Late last year the American Academy of Pediatrics warned pregnant women and children not to drink raw milk and said it supports a nationwide ban on its sale because of the danger of bacterial illnesses. Still, raw milk sales are legal in many places, including California and 29 other states. 
   
   Advocates say raw milk is delicious and provides health benefits, including protection against asthma and lactose intolerance. And when the animals are raised properly and the milk is treated carefully, they say, raw milk poses little danger to human health. 
   
   But the pilot study, conducted in 2010 with 16 people who identified themselves as lactose intolerant and suffering symptoms that were moderate to severe, did not show a benefit from raw milk. The participants, recruited from around Stanford, drank raw whole milk, pasteurized whole milk, and soy milk – all vanilla flavored to prevent them from detecting which was which. They drank specified amounts over eight days and were tested at many points for lactose malabsorption. 
   
   The trial “provided no evidence that raw milk is better tolerated by adults positive for lactose malabsorption, either objectively or subjectively,” the researchers wrote. 
   
   Previous studies have shown that unpasteurized yogurt can help sufferers. That could be, the researchers said, because of yogurt’s greater viscosity – which means it takes longer to digest. That gives the the good bacteria in yogurt more time to act on the lactose in the small intestine, they speculated. 
   
   It’s also conceivable that people need to adjust to raw milk and eight days was not enough, they said. Additional work should be done to test that idea, they wrote. 
   
   ALSO: 
   
   Glucosamine promotes longevity in worms and mice, study says 
   
   Electric stimulation offers new hope for 'reawakening' paralyzed limbs 
   
   For many teens, formal sex education comes too late, CDC report says 
   
   Mary.MacVean@latimes.com 
   
   Twitter: @mmacvean ||||| TIME Health For more, visit TIME Health 
   
   Only a small population of people drink unpasteurized milk, also known as “raw” milk, but its increasing popularity has some medical groups concerned. Some raw milk advocates argue that it’s healthier for us since raw milk contains no antibiotics or hormones, while others say it’s better for people with lactose allergies. For its part, the FDA advises against drinking raw milk, which can contain bacteria from fecal matter and sometimes be fatal, and has long stated that it doesn’t help with lactose intolerance. 
   
   But a new study published in the Annals of Family Medicine is definitively poking holes in the allergy theory, by reporting that lactose-intolerant people have the same symptoms from raw and pasteurized milk. 
   
   Advocates for raw milk claim that it contains good bacteria that can help with lactose absorption. “When I heard that claim it didn’t make sense to me because, regardless of the bacteria, raw milk and pasteurized milk have the same amount of lactose in them,” said study author Christopher Gardner, a professor of medicine at the Stanford Prevention Research Center in a statement. “But I liked the idea of taking this on since it seemed like a relatively straightforward and answerable question because the symptoms of lactose-intolerance are immediate.” 
   
   The study was small, with only 16 lactose-intolerant participants. All 16 tried three different types of milk–raw, pasteurized, and soy–over multiple eight-day periods. 
   
   For eight days, the participants were randomly assigned to one of the three milks, and they drank an increasing amount of that milk as the study period went on. They then reported their allergy symptoms, which were usually gas, diarrhea, and cramping, and rated them on a scale of 0 to 10. Their breaths were also measured for hydrogen, which can indicate undigested lactose in the colon and intolerance. 
   
   After the first eight days of drinking one type of milk, the participants took a week off where they drank no milk, and then started up again with another eight days of a different type of milk. To mask which type of milk participants were drinking, researchers randomized the order and added sugar-free vanilla syrup. Soy, which doesn’t contain lactose, acted as the control. 
   
   Researchers found no differences in the hydrogen breath tests between consuming pasteurized or unpasteurized milk. Participants also rated their symptom severity the same, regardless of the type of milk they drank. 
   
   Although the study is small, it brings into question the benefits of raw milk for people with lactose intolerance. “It’s not that there was a trend toward a benefit from raw milk and our study wasn’t big enough to capture it; it’s that there was no hint of any benefit,” said Gardner in a statement.
target: – Among lactose-intolerant people—who make up some 30% of Americans, according to Medical Daily—raw milk has become a popular alternative to the pasteurized stuff. The FDA says it's no better for them, and it warns that raw milk can actually be fatal, Time reports. Are raw-milk advocates right? A new study says no. Researchers had 16 self-identified lactose-intolerant subjects drink three kinds of milk: raw, pasteurized, and soy. All were vanilla-flavored so participants couldn't identify them, the Los Angeles Times reports. Over an eight-day period of consuming the milk varieties, subjects were tested for malabsorption; they also reported their allergy symptoms, Time notes. After a weeklong break, they tried another type of milk for eight days. In the end, there was "no evidence that raw milk is better tolerated by adults positive for lactose malabsorption, either objectively or subjectively," researchers say. They acknowledge, however, that more than eight days might be necessary to account for adjustment to raw milk. Meanwhile, the Daily Mail points to the genetics behind lactose intolerance, noting that it was found in a 7,000-year-old man.