There's no mention of ruling this out in the article, though I didn't read the study itself to see how/if they addressed it.
The nutrients in dairy are all fat soluble and so there some things that specifically target the excretion of fat from our systems. Drinking full fat milk will have more of those nutrients as it comes in bound to fat.
There may be some amount of causation going on because of milk (Dairy calcium specifically).
BBC documentary talks about the calcium thing here:http://vimeo.com/m/18339967
Gary taubes http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lDneyrETR2o and Robert lustig http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM talk about the carbohydrate hypothesis
A misleading oversimplification. Maintaing a net-energy-surplus is the causes of fat storage. Insulin is just one piece of the mechanics of how surplus energy gets stored as fat. There's no need to worry at all about insulin; just don't eat too much, and you don't get fat.
> Carbohydrates trigger a large insulin response while fats cause no insulin response (protein is somewhere in the middle)
ORLY? Show me a biochemistry text book that dares to tout this nonsense.
Bust insulin mythology: http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319
Gary Taubes again.... sigh....
> The nutrients in dairy are all fat soluble
Sorry but I don't think those words mean what you think they mean.
/// These data indicate that protein given with glucose will increase insulin secretion and reduce the plasma glucose rise in at least some type II diabetic persons. SOURCE: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6389060
It didn't take me long to find these two papers which find evidence of the antagonistic effect on glucose & insulin by the consumption of fat and protein. It doesn't look like nonsense to me.
Fat soluble vitamins and even chemicals like Caffeine or even Glutathione are absorbed more eficiently when mixed with fat.
Not that nature is perfect but it does get a lot of things right...whole fat milk seems to likely be more optimal than reduced fat milk.
Anyway, from what I've read, both blood glucose & insulin should be kept at reasonably stable levels. (ie. not too high) Therefore, maybe a combination of glycemic load index and insulin index would be helpful. Also, knowing now the effect of beef on insulin, I think it means we should be careful to eat small portions of meat or limit how often we eat meat.
I'm really amazed that these findings are only now being made.
No, I meant that the experiment I linked to didn't test fat's insulin stimulating ability in isolation. I didn't mean to suggest there's little other than fat in beef.
Testing the various amino acids would probably not be very useful. Do not subjugate fundamental principles to minor details. Which is also important when considering the effects of insulin. Basically it's not important at all as long as you don't eat too much food. Eating appropriate amounts of food is a fundamental principle; worrying about insulin levels is a minor detail.
> I think it means we should be careful to eat small portions of meat or limit how often we eat meat.
No, it does not. That may be confirmation bias at play. Are you a vegetarian/vegan? Remember that one of insulin's roles it to move nutrients from the bloodstream and into cells. beef is a very nutritionally dense food; you would need to eat 5 pounds of broccoli to get he same protein in an 8oz steak (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=100g+steak+vs.+1000g+br...). So it makes sense that when more nutrients enter the bloodstream, more insulin is required to move it all into our tissues. Carbs are the macronutrient "closest" in form to cellular fuel (glycogen). It takes a LOT more work to use protein as fuel than it does to use carbs. This is known as the "thermal effect" of food; how much energy is required to convert food into cellular fuel. .... and now I'm rambling... :P
While I'm not sure that "Taubes again sigh" is an argument I'm on board with (ad hominem fallacy?), nor is ORLY? A compelling argument (ad CAPS et meme fallacy?) I'm happy to adjust my understanding based on new evidence.
I'll happily read your reference and try determine if there is anything of value in it.
As well, fat solubility was presented to me as I passed it on in my comment, if my understanding is off I'd happily adjust to newer and better information.
When I started learning, I fell for the fallacious claims of Lustig, Taubes, the low-carbers, the paloetards; damn I was convinced! But then I switched to biochemistry & nutrition college textbooks and now a couple years later I've shed most of my overconfidence-of-a-novice. But I get very frustrated to see so many other people like I was, believing things that are just not true.
The most important advice I've ever read about nutrition is: NO NOT SUBJUGATE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES TO MINOR DETAILS. Net-energy balance is a fundamental principle. Obsessing over carb-types and insulin levels are minor details. It's like worrying about the candied-cherry on top of a HUGE piece of cake. The calories in the cake contribute 1000x more to your body-comp than the cherry. Another example is that adding every supplement you read is "good for you" will not contribute to your health anywhere nearly as much as a daily 45 min walk. Do not subjugate fundamental principles to minor details.
However there is a significant causative relationship between becoming overweight and increased blood-serum cholesterol.
It's more that being fat "clogs your arteries" than eating fat.
Correlation doesn't imply anything about causation, though the article itself is all about how maybe full-fat dairy causes lower obesity.
My point is that perhaps obesity causes less consumption of full-fat dairy (because "I'm getting kind of overweight; I'll get the low-fat one") OR there may be another factor that's causing both effects -- e.g., organic yoghurt is much more likely to be "natural" (full-fat), and people who eat a lot of organic food as part of choosing their diet tend to eat heathier (less fattening) meals.
I'm making both of these up -- but both situations explain a correlation/association between full-fat dairy and lower obesity without full-fat dairy causing lower obesity. A good study needs to rule this kind of stuff out to be useful.
Often, unfortunately, the study itself mentions various confounding factors, alternate explanations, etc., and the reporting just ignores all that, cherry-picks the desired "result" and poses the headline as a question to be safe.
If they're tracking two measurements, and observing a correlation, "people who get obese stop eating full fat yoghurt" needs to be ruled out of the effect, somehow.
But why don't you just go find an explicit flaw in their methodology, rather than assuming there must be an obvious one there?
From experience, I tend to suspect the article is at fault, not the study, though the error of "spinning a study to make it appear to prove something it didn't" is unfortunately rather more common than something like "didn't mention anything about how the study showed causation".