That’s a pretty amazing statement.
It’s in quotes, so normally the implication is that it’s somebody else’s words. But putting the sentence into Google with quotes gives no responses.
Putting the words into Google without quotes doesn’t give better results. Not surprising since the words strung into a sentence make no sense.
Is this something else that’s “common knowledge” without a single medical journal cite that can back it up?
If you feel like experimenting (on yourself, not the kid) try switching to 100% juice and see if it still happens. I get that ropy spit thing from regular, sugar added, cranberry juice, but not 100% juice so I suspect it’s the sugar causing the issue.
Sorry, are you under the impression that 100% juice doesn’t contain sugar?
This thread is ridiculous. It’s getting ulcers from all the nitpicking. You’re all endlessly going back and forth swinging your medical research cites around like electronic penises.
Left Hand of Dorkness, you don’t think coughing, wheezing, sneezing and a runny nose could be interpreted as mucus production? You really consider mucus running out of your nose to be LESS mucus, because it’s running out of you?
You’re all so hyper-sensitive to dogpile on the word ‘allergy.’
Would it make you all feel better to say: “milk produces a sensation in many people that coats, looks, feels, and acts exactly like mucus, but it isn’t actually”? Drinking beverages with sugar will leave a sticky solution of simple saccharides. Mucus is a sticky solution of polysaccharides. Protip: to the laymen they’re going to feel very similar.
Well, there’s glory for you! Let’s all use words to mean what we feel like they ought to mean. That should further understanding.
Mucus is not a sticky solution of polysaccharides. That is quite false. The primary components of mucus (apart from water) are glycoproteins. It is true that glycoproteins are molecules in which oligosaccharide chains are linked to the amino acid chains of the protein, but that is not at all the same thing as saying that glycoproteins (those found in mucus, or others) are poly- (or oligo-) saccharides. They are a quite different sort of molecule and their properties are conferred largely by their protein part. Solutions of saccharides (simple, oligo or poly) are not much like mucus at all. Which would you rather drink, a glass of sugary water or a glass of mucus? Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that increased consumption of either sugars (saccharides) or proteins (such as those in milk) is likely to lead to increased glycoprotein production. Metabolism does not work like that.
njtt, you’re trying to introduce facts into this thread. It will not be appreciated.
If you want to argue that the properties of mucus have nothing to do with the carbohydrates it contains, so be it. You’d be wrong though. The texture and hydrophilicity of mucus is absolutely due to the sugars. Go look at a mucin molecule and get back to me.
I took science too.
You must not have paid much attention in reading comprehension class though. I’m not saying that it leads to increased glycoprotein production. I’m saying drinking milk leaves a residue that will act and feel much like mucus.
When you’re going to act like a self-satisfied dick, at least try to be correct first.
:rolleyes: I assume they contain fructose, given they’re made from fruits. But not the additional sucrose also found in “fruit juice cocktails” used to make them sweeter. See, that’s why in the part you quoted I used the words “sugar added” not just “sugar.”
I did not say the saccharide components have nothing to do with the properties of mucus. Are you saying the protein component has nothing to do with its properties? Maybe you would like that nice glass of mucus I offered you? (But sugar water remains an option that you may prefer.)
Were you paying attention?
I admit that you did not explicitly say that. It was my best guess at what might be an at least superficially plausible hypothesis motivating what you did say. Apparently, however, you were actually claiming something considerably more absurd:
But it does not. I drink milk every day and it does no such thing. I do not feel like I have an abnormal amount of mucus in my throat after drinking it. Millions of other people also frequently drink milk and also report no such ill effects. Indeed, if I already have an excess of mucus in my throat, often the milk will help wash it away (although I will concede that certain other drinks will probably do this even more effectively). While it is at least conceivable (although probably not actually true, for reasons others have pointed out) that milk might cause increased mucus production in some sensitive individuals, it is certainly not true that milk in the throat, as one might temporarily have immediately after drinking milk, in itself feels similar to having mucus there. The physical properties of milk (or, for that matter, sugar-water) and mucus are not that similar.
Again, let me offer the alternatives of a glass of milk and a glass of mucus to drink. To be honest, I am not entirely sure which one you would abhor least, but I am absolutely certain that I would prefer the milk.
No comment.
Told you so.
I apologize for sounding a little overly confrontational, Elfkin. Mostly I was trying to make the point that there’s not a lot of difference between sugar from the fruit itself, and added sugar (sucrose is glucose-fructose, remember, and HFCS is similar). I’d venture that stuff like orange juice creates this clingy phlemmy junk more frequently because it tends to have more suspended solids and other debris than something like filtered apple juice.
njtt, I’m not going to engage in a sentence-by-sentence quotation battle with you over introduction-level biology. You didn’t say the saccharides did nothing, I didn’t say the proteins did nothing. We could go around and around all day. The cliffnotes are that mucus, yes, is indeed a complicated medley of enzymes and proteins and glycoproteins. It gets most of its water via osmotic drag from the sugars, and it gels in large part due to disulfide cross-links in the peptides. A huge proportion of its mechanical properties are, in fact, due entirely to the carbohydrate content. I hope we’re in agreement to this extent, at least.
Millions don’t experience it, millions do, blah blah.
Mucus is colloidal - so is milk. At the end of the day, I don’t think it’s unreasonable at all to expect that something like milk, which contains sugars and proteins, could leave a residue that might behave a lot like snot. Soda pop can do it. So can eating a spoonful of sugar.
So (for the third time now): sure, it isn’t mucus. It’s just a very-mucus-like substance.
Interconnected,
This is the GQ forum, not the IMHO one. Yes, your personal opinion is that milk gives you a sensation similar to mucous. That’s nice. Thanks for sharing.
The question asked in the op however was “Does dairy thicken mucus?” and that was not an IMHO question but a tractable GQ one. The answer is no, it does not.
Another posted his thought that many people have milk allergy and that milk allergy causes increased mucous production. Again, a GQ tractable comment, and, no “many” people do not have milk allergy and of those who do respiratory symptoms are infrequent.
The third line is the claim that anything with sugar, or certain sorts of sugar, or sugar and proteins, or maybe fats, or … now its anything colloidal? … anything it sounds like … can coat the throat and cause a mucous like sensation. And sure, it is possible that there are people who experience a mucous sensation when they eat or drink anything, and that adding honey to tea will cause a mucous sensation because honey is sticky and all … but it is a bit silly to offer that comment as part of answering a GQ question. At the risk of seeming like I’m swinging a penis around, studies have been cited that show “dairy product intake was not associated with an increase in upper or lower respiratory tract symptoms of congestion”. Colloidal like mucous or not, cloudy like mucous or not, having sugar or protein or fat or whatever or not, your personal anecdote or not, it just doesn’t. The question has long been answered.
You’re just sore because I handed your ass to you over in the NYC thread. The veracity of the claim is one thing. Whether dairy is good for nursing mothers or not is an easily Googled topic. Only passive aggressiveness or gross incompetence could explain why you couldn’t find it. The sentence was clear and concise and easily understood by anyone with basic reading comprehension skills.
samjones,
Pediatrician here. I’ve read and comprehended much over the years and whatever point you were trying to make - whooshing, making some allusion to some show or book you’ve read, or whatever, was not at all easily understood with my basic reading comprehension skills. If you were actually being serious and quoting something without providing even a hint of where you were quoting it from, or quoting from something someone has told you, or whatever, then that’s … odd. As is a GQ response of claiming something is easily Googled.
Is milk good for nursing mothers?
Yes. Except in the uncommon case of an infant with a true milk allergy or a mother who is for any reason intolerant of milk. The Mom has a huge need to replace the calcium she is putting into her breast milk and milk is an excellent source for that calcium.
Does a nursing mother drinking cow’s milk cause more mucous in the baby?
No. Absolutely not. (Honestly I was sure you were whooshing by passing on another milk related myth you had heard in the past; that you may have been serious is mind-boggling.)
Got some kind of cite for that, Doc? Or are you simply speaking off the top of your head?
Surely as an MD you appreciate the value of scientific study over anecdotal claims - even from practitioners with years of experience. WHat if I were to tell you that I heard those words from a pediatrician with many years of experience and the statement was then confirmed by a second MD + a nurse + a nurse practitioner?
Yes - I was repeating a claim that I had heard that was relevant to the thread. No - I do not know whether it is true or false. If I had that information I would have cited. Yes - I used quotes to indicate that it was simply a claim that I had heard. Yes - the sentence was written and clear and concise English and there wasn’t any real reason for anyone to get snarky about it. Mapcase is just sore about what happened over in the NYC thread. I don’t want him following me around with a attitude.
I hope this answered all of your questions.
Yes, cites already given that even direct dairy exposure does not cause more or thicker mucous or even more of a sensation of congestion, let alone the small amount of cows milk protein that gets into breast milk.
Care to share why you thought it was “relevant” to answering a General Question, which you understand is a request for verifiable factual information, to drive by with an unattributed quote from a claim that you heard … somewhere? Yes, there are lots of claims that people have heard somewhere. And? Dropping in another unattributed something you heard somewhere without comment is helpful and relevant to a GQ thread because …?
I am not sore about you over anything, not following you, just was, and am, totally befuddled why anyone would think of doing that. Yes the sentence itself is clear and concise. So is this one: “Dodo birds sacrifice human children Christmas mornings.” And both make as much sense to be dropped into this thread in quotes.
Really. Odd.
Why you think a statement about dairy consumption and mucus doesn’t belong on in the dairy consumption/mucus thread goes beyond me.
Why you think that the “small amount of cows milk protein that gets into breast milk” should be inconsequential to the health of the nursing infant goes way beyond me. Clearly nursing mothers watch what they eat for a reason. They believe that their diet affects the well-being of their children.
Newborns are sensitive to cow’s milk, so prima facia the claim is not ridiculous. I can’t find anything online to verify it… but unlike the orginal milk causes mucus claim I can’t find any study that disproves the statement.
Sometimes I think that MD’s figure since they worked so hard to get their education and they see so many patients they qualify as a primary source for broad generalizations… Fair enough, I suppose, but what about when equally qualified physicians hold opposing opinions?
As someone with no dog in this fight, that’s fine, but I’d prefer it if you had something other than a secondhand, contextless quote dropped into the middle of a thread. In assigning values to GQ responses, that one has no value to me. There’s nothing in it that I can use to judge its veracity, there’s no explanation for the mechanism behind this, and no points to any study, or any other experts in the field agreeing with this, except for your claims of hearing it from two doctors and a nurse, who we can’t question to decide for ourselves whether to believe them or not.
A random statement that someone has heard somewhere offered up without source or comment by someone who does not know whether or not there is any reason to believe it or not does not belong in a thread that asks for a factual answer to a question.
The fact that large amounts directly consumed has no effect on mucous or the sensation of mucous makes a small amount gotten through breast milk to be of no consequence to the question of mucous.
The number of newborns sensitive to cows milk has been cited already and the fraction of newborns whose reaction includes upper respiratory symptoms has already been provided - so if you can’t find anything online you have not bothered to even read this thread. Again, all children it is 2-3% overall with a milk protein allergy and perhaps as much as a third of them with any respiratory symptom. The common respiratory symptom is lower airway wheezing, not nasal symptoms. When nasal symptoms do occur usually eye irritation goes along with it. And then often with hives and vomiting as part of an anaphylactic reaction. Among exclusively breastfed babies the overall incidence is 0.5% and presumably the same one third with any respiratory symptoms. If you are interested here is another review.
The fact is that Mom’s do hear some of these unattributed claims that people just repeat and believe them. "They say that … " without ever knowing who “they” are and what basis they have or do have for saying that. And some Mom’s then don’t drink milk as a result with adverse consequences to their own health.
But yeah, responding to a GQ with something “they say” without even attributing it to “they” is obviously something that is A Good Thing.
BTW, please note: I provide cites and have not resorted to “my post is my cite” or speaking “from authority”. The mention of being a pediatrician was merely in context of a claim that anyone who did not grasp your clear point must be reading disabled. I can read all kinds of stuff. If I use personal observation of a 20 plus year practice as a basis for an opinion I will clearly state such and the value of that as evidence is significantly less than that of well controlled experiments and should be weighted by readers accordingly. Still even that values higher than an unattributed “they say”.
Newborns are not sensitive to cow’s milk. A tiny minority of newborns may react to cow’s milk for a variety of reasons, from milk allergy to galactosemia. However, newborns all over the world have been given cow’s milk and sheep’s milk and goat’s milk’s and buffalo’s milk and mare’s milk and camel’s milk and that of other species as well for thousands of years and have thrived on it.
I don’t suppose it’s worth my time to ask for a cite.
You’re new here, so I’ll explain our culture. The Board exists to examine anecdotal statements and provide solidly researched claims by experts to their validity. Anecdotal claims are usually found to be wrong. Why? Because they have samples too small or too non-representative to mean anything. Because they are subject to context. Because non-experts can easily misunderstand what an expert says. Because the exact wording often matters and memory fails on exact wording. Because … at arm’s length as given in thousands of threads that demolish anecdotal claims.
“Newborns are sensitive to cow’s milk” is an easily researched claim. The unwritten rule of the Board is that because you made it you have to back it up with some solid evidence. “Something I may or may have heard” is not evidence of any kind.
BTW, “The phrase prima facie is sometimes misspelled prima facia in the mistaken belief that facia is the actual Latin word; however, the word is in fact faciēs (fifth declension), of which faciē is the ablative.”
Moderator warning
samjones, insults and personal attacks are not permitted in General Questions. This is an official warning. Do not do this again.
[QUOTE=samjones]
Mapcase is just sore about what happened over in the NYC thread. I don’t want him following me around with a attitude.
[/QUOTE]
Exapno posts to a lot of threads. You have no reason to think he is “following you around.”
GQ is for factual answers. Simply repeating a claim that you have no reason to believe and are unable to support with a cite is both pointless and useless. If that’s what you have to contribute, then there is no need to post it. Please refrain in the future.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator