
Does drinking milk make your bones stronger?
For generations, Americans have been told — through school nutrition programs and advertising campaigns — that milk is an essential part of a healthy diet.
Key to that narrative was that milk builds strong bones. Your bones are made of calcium, and one cup of whole milk contains about 300 milligrams of this nutrient. So drinking three cups per day, the thinking went, must make them resilient. But that message was built on short-term studies and pushed by the dairy industry, said Dr. Walter Willett, a professor of epidemiology and nutrition at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.
With over one-third of people in the United States having trouble digesting lactose, nobody needs to drink cow's milk, said Christopher Gardner, a nutrition scientist and professor of medicine at Stanford University. Getting enough calcium is still important, especially for some high-risk groups, but there may be better sources.
What does milk do to bones?
Calcium is an essential nutrient, critical for nerve, muscle, and heart function, as well as bone and tooth health. However, as with most nutrients, your body needs only a certain amount. The U.S. dietary guidelines recommend that adults consume 1,000 to 1,200 milligrams of calcium per day, but this threshold is debated among experts, and other countries, like the United Kingdom, recommend only 700 milligrams.
Past clinical trials have found that when children and adults who weren't eating enough calcium increased their consumption, whether via dairy foods or supplements, their bone densities increased by up to 3%. But those gains were too small to meaningfully reduce fracture risk, Willett said. And other studies have found that people must consume extra calcium every day to maintain those gains, which may not be worth the investment, he added.
'The idea that we need a lot of calcium is based primarily on very short-term studies looking at calcium balance over a few weeks,' Willett said. An analysis of 79 milk papers published between 1999 and 2003 found that more than one-third received funding from the dairy industry.
There's even evidence that people can have strong bones without drinking milk. According to one review published in 2020, people who live in countries with the lowest rates of hip fractures also tend to drink the least milk. And analyses of multiple studies have found that drinking more milk was not associated with lower fracture risk.
Of course, studies like these can't prove any link between milk consumption and bone health, said Dr. René Rizzoli, the former head of the bone diseases department at the University Hospitals of Geneva. To show that milk consumption prevents fractures, for instance, you would need clinical trials on the topic, which have not been done.
Ultimately, your exercise and broader diet may have more influence over your bone health. So don't count on milk alone to eliminate your fracture risk, Rizzoli said.
Do some people need milk more than others?
Experts say that children ages 9 to 18 need more calcium than any other age group to support their growth, as do older adults, since bone density tends to decrease after age 50.
When a person's calcium levels are low, the body can adapt by pulling more calcium from food and rejecting less as waste, Gardner said. But these mechanisms decline with age, and when the body isn't getting enough, it pulls more calcium from bones, he added, weakening them.
In a 2021 clinical trial, researchers assigned more than 7,000 older adults living in assisted care facilities in Australia to either maintain their usual two servings of dairy per day or increase their consumption to 3.5 servings per day. Over the two-year study, the higher-dairy group had an 11% reduced risk of falls and a 33% reduced risk of fractures. The researchers also found that they maintained more weight, muscle mass, and bone density than the lower-dairy group, though the team couldn't determine whether their lower risk of falls and fractures was because of stronger bones or something else, said Sandra Iuliano, a nutritionist at the University of Melbourne.
Regardless, milk can be one of the most convenient sources of calcium, along with other nutrients such as protein, potassium, and phosphorus, said Jeri Nieves, a nutritional epidemiologist at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York City. Other foods — like tofu, bony fish, leafy vegetable,s and fortified orange juice or plant-based milks — are good sources too, Nieves said, even if they have less calcium per serving.
The best option for calcium, however, might be fermented dairy products like yogurt and cheese. They support the gut microbiome, tend to be better tolerated by people sensitive to lactose, and are more strongly tied to lower fracture risk than milk, Rizzoli said. They're also packed with calcium — a 1.5-ounce serving of cheddar cheese, for example, has the same amount as a cup of whole milk.
'If you like milk, drink it. If you don't like milk, or if you can't tolerate it, use some other source,' Nieves said.
This article originally appeared in
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Observer
2 days ago
- Observer
Does drinking milk make your bones stronger?
I've always heard that you need to drink milk to keep your bones healthy. Is that true? For generations, Americans have been told — through school nutrition programs and advertising campaigns — that milk is an essential part of a healthy diet. Key to that narrative was that milk builds strong bones. Your bones are made of calcium, and one cup of whole milk contains about 300 milligrams of this nutrient. So drinking three cups per day, the thinking went, must make them resilient. But that message was built on short-term studies and pushed by the dairy industry, said Dr. Walter Willett, a professor of epidemiology and nutrition at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. With over one-third of people in the United States having trouble digesting lactose, nobody needs to drink cow's milk, said Christopher Gardner, a nutrition scientist and professor of medicine at Stanford University. Getting enough calcium is still important, especially for some high-risk groups, but there may be better sources. What does milk do to bones? Calcium is an essential nutrient, critical for nerve, muscle, and heart function, as well as bone and tooth health. However, as with most nutrients, your body needs only a certain amount. The U.S. dietary guidelines recommend that adults consume 1,000 to 1,200 milligrams of calcium per day, but this threshold is debated among experts, and other countries, like the United Kingdom, recommend only 700 milligrams. Past clinical trials have found that when children and adults who weren't eating enough calcium increased their consumption, whether via dairy foods or supplements, their bone densities increased by up to 3%. But those gains were too small to meaningfully reduce fracture risk, Willett said. And other studies have found that people must consume extra calcium every day to maintain those gains, which may not be worth the investment, he added. 'The idea that we need a lot of calcium is based primarily on very short-term studies looking at calcium balance over a few weeks,' Willett said. An analysis of 79 milk papers published between 1999 and 2003 found that more than one-third received funding from the dairy industry. There's even evidence that people can have strong bones without drinking milk. According to one review published in 2020, people who live in countries with the lowest rates of hip fractures also tend to drink the least milk. And analyses of multiple studies have found that drinking more milk was not associated with lower fracture risk. Of course, studies like these can't prove any link between milk consumption and bone health, said Dr. René Rizzoli, the former head of the bone diseases department at the University Hospitals of Geneva. To show that milk consumption prevents fractures, for instance, you would need clinical trials on the topic, which have not been done. Ultimately, your exercise and broader diet may have more influence over your bone health. So don't count on milk alone to eliminate your fracture risk, Rizzoli said. Do some people need milk more than others? Experts say that children ages 9 to 18 need more calcium than any other age group to support their growth, as do older adults, since bone density tends to decrease after age 50. When a person's calcium levels are low, the body can adapt by pulling more calcium from food and rejecting less as waste, Gardner said. But these mechanisms decline with age, and when the body isn't getting enough, it pulls more calcium from bones, he added, weakening them. In a 2021 clinical trial, researchers assigned more than 7,000 older adults living in assisted care facilities in Australia to either maintain their usual two servings of dairy per day or increase their consumption to 3.5 servings per day. Over the two-year study, the higher-dairy group had an 11% reduced risk of falls and a 33% reduced risk of fractures. The researchers also found that they maintained more weight, muscle mass, and bone density than the lower-dairy group, though the team couldn't determine whether their lower risk of falls and fractures was because of stronger bones or something else, said Sandra Iuliano, a nutritionist at the University of Melbourne. Regardless, milk can be one of the most convenient sources of calcium, along with other nutrients such as protein, potassium, and phosphorus, said Jeri Nieves, a nutritional epidemiologist at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York City. Other foods — like tofu, bony fish, leafy vegetable,s and fortified orange juice or plant-based milks — are good sources too, Nieves said, even if they have less calcium per serving. The best option for calcium, however, might be fermented dairy products like yogurt and cheese. They support the gut microbiome, tend to be better tolerated by people sensitive to lactose, and are more strongly tied to lower fracture risk than milk, Rizzoli said. They're also packed with calcium — a 1.5-ounce serving of cheddar cheese, for example, has the same amount as a cup of whole milk. 'If you like milk, drink it. If you don't like milk, or if you can't tolerate it, use some other source,' Nieves said. This article originally appeared in


Observer
10-08-2025
- Observer
Dentists know you hate flossing. Try this instead
Lancette VanGuilder is the president of the American Dental Hygienists' Association, and she does not floss. 'We are brainwashed from the time we get into dental hygiene school that floss is boss,' said VanGuilder, who practices in Nevada. 'But the standard message we give everyone — brush and floss — doesn't work anymore.' To better clean between her teeth, VanGuilder has replaced her floss with tiny scrubbers called interdental brushes, with bristles that are typically made of nylon or rubber. And a growing number of dental professionals are encouraging their patients to try them, either along with or instead of floss. The American Dental Association says that the best method of interdental cleaning, or cleaning between your teeth, is the one that you will do regularly. And given that many people do not floss — only about one-third of Americans do, according to some estimates — the association advises dentists that other devices might be more pleasant or effective for those patients. According to the association, there are many effective tools for cleaning between teeth, including floss, dental picks, interdental brushes or water flossers. There is limited research comparing floss with other interdental cleaning tools, and most of those studies are relatively small. But a 2018 review of 22 clinical trials found that the brushes were more effective than floss or other tools at reducing gum inflammation. Anecdotally, many dental professionals said they had seen the difference interdental brushes have made for their patients — and sometimes even for their families. Dr. Mia Geisinger, president of the American Academy of Periodontology, convinced her husband to add interdental brushes to his daily brushing and flossing regimen. 'When he saw what came out from between his teeth, he was both appalled and hooked,' she said. A Deeper Clean for Your Mouth Whatever the tool or technique, the goal of cleaning your teeth is to get rid of plaque, which can lead to gum disease and inflammation around the tooth, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Gum disease has been associated with a number of health conditions, including heart disease and diabetes. Using a toothbrush alone removes 'about 40 to 60% of the plaque on teeth but doesn't do a good job of getting in between the teeth,' Geisinger said. VanGuilder added that floss is generally effective for getting out big pieces of food, but when it comes to plaque — 'all the invisible bacteria, viruses, fungi and parasites' — it doesn't always work as well. The challenge is twofold: Plaque is sticky, and the edges of your teeth aren't straight. Everyone's mouth is different, and some people are better than others at flossing in the nooks and crannies where pathogens live. Interdental brushes, on the other hand, are more flexible and they're easier to use correctly, VanGuilder said. How to Find What Works for You For those willing to put in the time, a combination of tools might be most effective. That's why when those patients come to visit Geisinger, she hands them a map of their mouths. She generally recommends interdental brushes of various sizes to clean between teeth, and suggests floss if a patient has a very tight space between two teeth. But Judith Albino, president emerita of the University of Colorado and professor emerita at the university's schools of public health and dental medicine, is skeptical that many people will take up a complicated dental routine. Most Americans don't follow the standard dental advice, she said. 'If you're adding something new, you're adding another element of time, and something to do that they're not used to,' Albino said. For that reason, VanGuilder leaves the decision up to her patients. If they prefer floss, she tells them to floss. If they prefer an interdental brush, she'll tell them which size to buy. If they're particularly enthusiastic, she'll guide them through using various brushes for spaces of different sizes. 'Ultimately, the only tool that's really beneficial is the tool that you're going to use,' VanGuilder said. This article originally appeared in


Observer
02-08-2025
- Observer
The battle to beat jet lag: Can an app make a difference?
Nothing undermines the joy of travel quite like a bad case of jet leg. That's why an entire industry has popped up to help deal with it, hawking solutions like light therapy glasses, targeted supplements, apps and coaching. But do any of them actually work? I put two popular methods to the test on a two-week journey to Asia in May. I flew from New York City, where I live, to Seoul, South Korea, and Taipei, Taiwan — both on the other side of the globe, a difference that is literally night and day — and then back home. The two apps to which I ceded control of my daily rhythms, Flykitt and Timeshifter, are personalized programs based on scientific approaches to jet lag. Both directed me when to sleep, get light exposure, drink caffeine and take supplements. But they took different approaches: Flykitt featured a heavy vitamin regimen, while Timeshifter focused on preparing for jet lag days before flying. The Science of Jet Lag Both apps rely on circadian science, the study of the body's internal clocks. The central clock is in the brain and follows a roughly 24-hour cycle. Many mental, physical and behavioral changes in the body, such as hormone release, and sleeping and waking, are influenced by the circadian clock. Research shows that exposure to light plays a key role in synchronizing these rhythms to the outside world. Jet lag happens when the body clock falls out of sync with the local time, resulting in discomforts like poor digestion, foggier memory and focus, and interrupted sleep. Many sleep experts said light exposure is the key to shifting the body's internal clock. Light at strategic times can move the clock in either direction. Basically, to move it earlier, you'll want to see light earlier in the morning than usual; to move it later, get that light exposure deeper into the night. 'Your brain wants to be awake, but you want to be asleep,' said Jamie Zeitzer, a professor of sleep medicine at Stanford University and co-director of its Center for Sleep and Circadian Sciences. We don't all adjust to time zone changes the same way. Sveta Postnova, an associate professor of brain dynamics and neurophysics at the University of Sydney, pointed to anecdotal evidence that some travelers reported weeks of suffering while others claimed to be unaffected, but said that so far there is no objective data that explains this gap. Our natural tendencies to sleep earlier or later, called chronotypes, may also play a role. Night owls have an easier time going west, which requires staying up later than usual, and early birds tend to find flying east easier, said Kelly Glazer Baron, a professor of family medicine and the director of the University of Utah's behavioral sleep medicine program. Long-haul journeys across multiple time zones present a timing challenge: Seoul was 13 hours ahead of New York when I went and Taipei was 12 hours ahead. For most people, it's harder to move your sleep time earlier than it is to delay sleep. The apps proved useful by helping me wrap my head around time zone calculations, such as the ideal time to sleep on a flight and when to blast my eyes with light to better adjust to my destination. While seeing light at night seems counterintuitive to getting good sleep, there's a clear reason behind it. It signals to the body that it's not time to sleep yet, keeping you awake and shifting your body clock a bit later, said Jay Olson, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Toronto Mississauga who has studied jet lag. 'Sometimes what's best for your circadian rhythm is not necessarily best for sleep hygiene,' he said. Test No. 1: Flykitt First up, for the New York-to-Seoul trip, was Flykitt. Its starter pack, $99 for a round trip, includes glasses that filter blue light to minimize light exposure and packs of supplements meant to target inflammation. The program, which promised to curb jet lag in just three days, began on departure day. I put my flight details into the app and answered a few questions about my caffeine intake and sleep patterns, and the app promptly churned out a detailed schedule. On the 15-hour nonstop flight to Seoul, the program recommended only a three-hour nap, so I barely slept. Instead, I diligently studied my schedule, donned my special glasses, ate meals and took vitamins every few hours. The patented supplement protocol included vitamins B6, B12 and C; magnesium glycinate; melatonin; and omega-3 fatty acids. Andrew Herr, who founded in Flykitt in 2022 and previously worked as a military contractor researching human performance, said he believed data shows that inflammation is a 'key piece' of jet lag and that it's 'exacerbated by the lower sleep or the disruptive sleep you get during travel.' At first, popping handfuls of pills was novel and funny, until it wasn't. The regimen had me taking about three dozen vitamins over three days, starting on the day of the flight. I also experienced mysterious, intense thirst. I couldn't be sure, but I suspected the vitamins were to blame. Addressing my unquenchable thirst resulted in a need to use the bathroom approximately every hour. I spent roughly equal time sightseeing as I did finding public toilets in Seoul. Perhaps this experience is an anomaly; Herr said that the company has less than 1 adverse report per 1,000 kits sold and that negative experiences generally involve gastrointestinal issues. While I wouldn't say my jet lag was zapped by Day 3, I slept well and felt energized. I felt fully adjusted after five days, shortly before flying to Taiwan. Flykitt's app told me that unassisted, this time zone alignment would generally take a little over a week. Test No. 2: Timeshifter After about a week in Taipei, I returned to New York using Timeshifter's guidance. This app was cheaper than Flykitt, $25 for a year's subscription. No blue-light glasses, which I honestly enjoyed wearing. The only recommended supplement was melatonin, which I was to take for my first four nights back home to help with the adjustment. While Flykitt instructed me when to avoid light, Timeshifter alerted me about times to seek it out. When I couldn't be outside, I turned on as many lights as I could. Standard room light is about half as effective as daylight, Zeitzer of Stanford said. The weeklong program featured a preflight shift two days before my return. This meant seeing light several hours before sleeping, as well as gradually pushing my sleep and wake times later, which wasn't practical in my final days in Taipei. I didn't want to sleep until 10 a.m. on my last day in the city when I could be crushing soup dumplings instead. Mickey Beyer-Clausen, a co-founder and the CEO of Timeshifter, agreed that it wasn't always easy to follow the optimal advice. 'We say, follow the plan as much as you can,' he said. 'It is not crucial that it's followed a hundred percent.' On my evening return flight from Taiwan, the app advised acclimating to New York's time zone, where it was daytime, by drinking caffeinated beverages deep into the night. It also suggested napping, which I found to be conflicting advice after having tea. I dozed maybe an hour or two. Back home, the regimen of light at night and melatonin to assist with sleep continued for several more days. Staying up when I was exhausted was painful without the adrenaline of being somewhere new. It took me about five days to feel back to normal. The bottom line: Neither program markedly shaved time off my jet lag, but I did feel more clearheaded during and after my trip and I didn't get sick. The severe dehydration I felt may have been anomalous, but it was a pretty big minus for me. Perhaps the biggest benefit the apps offered was confidence; science was on my side. This article originally appeared in