Hmm, interesting information. It does point out one of the comments I believe I had previously mentioned earlier. It's very possible that a large amount of those claiming "lactose intolerant" are misdiagnosed. As with a great many of our diseases, doctors most likely go with patient disclosure rather than scientific testing. That's one of the problems with the antibiotic dilemma right now. Based on verbal testimony, it may or may not be a particular disease, but we are going to prescribe this and if it doesn't work, come back in two weeks. Even though testing for lactose intolerance is extremely easy, it doesn't appear widely done. That double-blind study would support that belief. Of 63 patients who made it past the initial screening, 36 failed the hydrogen breath test. That's 57% of the applicants. Have you had the scientific testing done or is it self-diagnosed/verbally diagnosed? I'm quite curious to know. This stuff fascinates me. My personal experience with my eldest daughter has confirmed this, but it was impossible to get our insurance to cover the cost for the intolerance testing. And at over $600, we can't afford it. After a fluke accident with Halloween candy, we think it was more of a too-healthy diet lacking sugars than the intolerance.
A lot of people have complaints about their digestive systems and they're looking for answers. From my own experience, it's often not as easy to divine the problem as you'd think. I had just lower than normal lactase levels and I didn't always have severe symptoms. I think it's short-sighted for the insurance company to not cover the testing.
Quote:
I would also be interested in that 57%. However, given they weren't lactose intolerant, that is a separate question from what they were asking. Your second point is unfounded. This is something you'd only learn in a college statistics or experimental design class, so bear with me. Small sample sizes are a problem only for Type II Errors: the likelihood of failing to reject the null hypothesis when the alternate hypothesis is true. Think of it as a false negative. This can happen when an effect of some variable is very small, but consistent. It can take larger sample sizes to detect a difference. That is not what happened in this study, they found large statistically significant differences in symptoms over time in both raw and pasteurized over both baseline and soy. With effects that large, funding agencies would not support more expansive and expensive study. Having said that, there was a slightly significant difference between raw and pasteurized on day 1 of testing (p=0.04). That would be worth exploring more.
Quote:
Every study can't answer every question about a subject. The study was supported by the raw milk lobby and that is what they paid for. We should be grateful for it, it's the only one out there. And that's the great thing about science, anyone can go out and collect data that will either agree or disagree with this first study. But, I am in complete agreement that long term studies will be much more valuable. Chronic digestive issues generally don't clear themselves up over night.
Quote: Agreed.
ETA: trying to make the stats explanation clearer.
Last edited: