Talk:Lactose intolerance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lactose intolerance article.
Article policies
Food Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] I can't find the link where are the stadistics of that map from could you send the link?

[edit] Extremely Silly Question

In the part that shows " * 1.1 Lactose intolerance by group" - North American Jews stick out (as do the British) for their relatively highly Lactose intolerance. Do environmental factors (like stress, past life circumstances, etc...) play a part in lactose intolerance (the answer is obviously yes, but I'm trying to gauge an idea of how much a part is played). For example, do Indians in India have a lower or higher lactose intolerance than South Asians in America or the UK (don't be surprise with any counter-intuititive observations here - lactose exposure might have some effect on gene expression).


[edit] Negative health issues associated with lactose intolerance

Are there other health problems that may be caused by lactose intolerance, or that are associated with it? Can some of these problems be due to associated genetic causes?

[edit] Heat Treatment of Milk

This is probably mentioned on the site, though I'm not sure about it. When I try to have 'raw' milk, it causes problems for me. However, heating the milk makes it digestible. Does heat destroy lactose?

Well, no because studies have shown that it does not in many ways. Heating the milk will actually increase the levels of lactose in the dairy products.

[edit] Lactose intolerance in cats?

Would one of the side effects of milk for cats be bloating? Seems ever since she decided she really had to have milk, she has had bloating

Bloating would not be visible to the eye, unless the cat was furless and real skinny. However cats will whine when they experience discomfort.

It should be noted that if a mammal is taken off milk (voluntarily weaned), the lactase producing cells in the small intestine may stop secreting lactase and therefore "become" lactose intolerant. This is common among stray cats. With pet cats, people often will feed cats milk on an occasional basis, this keeps the cats producing lactase. However, stray cats have usually been properly weaned and if given milk can suffer collics. This is already discussed in Wikipedia cat page.

This lactose intolerance brought on by voluntary weaning also occurs in humans.

[edit] Majority of humans?

Is there a citation for the "majority of humans" claim? A lot of humans seem not to be: most western Europeans and north Americans are not lactose intolerant, Mongolians regularly drink fermented horse milk, and so on. --Delirium 08:25, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not making a claim about the majority of humans, but it's worth noting that fermented milk products have already been partly digested by bacteria. How this affects the lactose content probably varies by type of bacteria, but (for instance) lactobacillus used in yogurt production converts lactose to lactic acid. --FOo 00:43, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

there is a recent citation for the "majority of humans", the abstract of which I provide here:

Dbach 15:25, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Annu Rev Genet. 2003;37:197-219

Genetics of lactase persistence and lactose intolerance. Swallow DM.

Galton Laboratory, Department of Biology, University College London, Wolfson House, 4 Stephenson Way, London NW1 2HE, England. dswallow@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk

The enzyme lactase that is located in the villus enterocytes of the small intestine is responsible for digestion of lactose in milk. Lactase activity is high and vital during infancy, but in most mammals, including most humans, lactase activity declines after the weaning phase. In other healthy humans, lactase activity persists at a high level throughout adult life, enabling them to digest lactose as adults. This dominantly inherited genetic trait is known as lactase persistence. The distribution of these different lactase phenotypes in human populations is highly variable and is controlled by a polymorphic element cis-acting to the lactase gene. A putative causal nucleotide change has been identified and occurs on the background of a very extended haplotype that is frequent in Northern Europeans, where lactase persistence is frequent. This single nucleotide polymorphism is located 14 kb upstream from the start of transcription of lactase in an intron of the adjacent gene MCM6. This change does not, however, explain all the variation in lactase expression.

[edit] Links

didn't find this very helpful, would rather see a more scientific link.


External link: http://gerd.msn.com/article.aspx?aid=49

Well then find a better one. This has some solid information and is better than no external references. Any external reference that is independent and verifies the material in a wikipedia article is good. I'm putting it back in until there are other "more scientific" references that verify the same facts that this article does. Once better, more complete references are there, this one is not needed. But for example, the article supports the potentially contentious (and non intuitive to caucasians) fact questioned above that the majority of humans are lactose intolerant to some degree. - Taxman 21:36, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)


I agree - only concerning the support of the "majority"-claim I fear that nowadays lots of internet resources rely on wikipedia. That's why I never trust Internet information on scientific subjects. I'd rather search PubMed (and will do so) Dbach 19:14, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have found a better citation and replace it. Dbach 15:26, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Human vs. other mammalian lactose

If a human is lactose intolerant, are they intolerant to all milk, regardless of whether it came from a human or other mammal? Do humans became lactase non-persistent after weaning from human milk, or does this only apply to other mammalian milk? Most of the (scientific) literature I pull up only talks about general dairy, not human dairy. --Westendgirl 19:36, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

They are intolerant to the lactose in the dairy products (or anywhere lactose occurs), and so yes, they are intolerant of human and non-human milk alike (or if you sweeten your beer/cider with lactose, which apparently yeast won't use, then they can't drink this either). AFAIK, your lactose tolerance status does not change if you change your consumption of lactose: regardless of whether you're tolerant and never used/discontinue or if you're intolerant and continue/start (excepting for the weaning period as a child, which happens regardless of whether you continue drinking milk or not).

Many doctors I have discussed lactose intolerance with have said the opposite. There are occasional cases of humans who become lactose intolerant following weaning, such as following a vegan diet or non dairy vegetarian diet. Lactose intolerance due to weaning is also common among stray cats. You will find that most pet cats who are fed milk throughout their lives are fine versus many stray cats are lactose intolerant and will experience discomfort if given milk. Of course there may be a combination of factors at work here but it nonetheless exists--Tallard 18:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Lactose, y'see, is just another sugar, like glucose or fructose, and not some special product that makes something dairy. Felix the Cassowary 08:36, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Urination & lactase persistence

Before I change it, does anyone know what's up with the last paragraph: "uncomfortable phases of life... (like urination)." and "the minority Western European group should be labeled as suffering from lactase persistence." This all seems a little silly. Anyone care to defend it? chihowa 14:33, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As an Old European, I do not mind deleting a little political correctness in exchange for clarification ... :) Dbach 15:21, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I was wondering about the urination bit, too. It seems like an interesting point, but the urination example is just confusing. Is there a better one? I have no problem with "lactase persistence", but I'm pretty sure no one "suffers from" it. Quincy 21:16, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Mutation on chromosome 2

I've been researching this subject for a while (not scientifically, just because I'm curious) and I've found no mention of lactose intolerance being caused by a mutation on chromosome 2. What I've read is that there is a change in the translation of the lactase gene after the weaning period in most of the Earth's people. Here's one link: [http://www.emedicine.com/PED/topic1270.htm ] --Bobsky 19:51, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Look here OMIM. It's fairly scientific, beware. JFW | T@lk 02:30, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What is a "western eurasian"?

This article refers to "western eurasians" but does not link to any of the articles on Eurasians. Which kind is being referred to? Does "western eurasian" include northern americans? If it clearly relates to an existing article we should create a link so there is no confusion. - Tεxτurε 23:09, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)


"Western Eurasian" clearly refers to the people of Western Eurasia (to avoide having to list a half a dozen regions) and people descendant from that origin. It is after all first and foremost a geographical term. A link to the article on Eurasia would be more appropiate, but not really necessary.

[edit]  

I'm "Black" and I can drink fresh milk. But I also have pale skin and red hair, so whatever.

[edit] Is any of this actually true?

Here I am in Japan and people are drinking milk and eating cheese like crazy. If they're lactose intolerant they don't show any symptoms. Come to think of it, doesn't the word "intolerant" imply something stronger than "unable to digest"? After all, I'm unable to digest grass, but I don't go around calling myself "grass intolerant".

The first time I heard this "only white folk can digest milk" idea, it was on a vegan propaganda site. I considered it highly suspect at the time. This article provides more credible scientific-sounding information, but given the lack of solid sources, isn't it possible Wikipedia is being duped by anti-dairy propaganda?

--221.249.13.34 06:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Well read the studies given and do some research for us. One thing I know for sure is that people can be somewhat lactose intolerant and just not know that is what it is. Since dairy products are so ubiquitous, people just chalk the symptoms up to being normal or whatever. Also each persons lactase production varies so what they are safe eating sometimes doesn't work others. There are actually some studies that were conducted that found lactose intolerance isn't as prevalent as people think. I think the study gave people 50g of lactose and many people who thought they were lactose intolerant didn't have symptoms. It didnt seem like the study was well controlled, but probably some more research is needed for this article. - Taxman Talk 12:49, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
I think we're being put on a bit by this anonymous user, or else he's seeing a few things in Japan that he thinks contradict the article (but they don't) and then his predispositions lead him to claim eyewitness status to things he didn't really see. A likely scenario: Over the days following his reading of this article he repeatedly sees Japanese folks eating cheese and he registers this as in contradiction to the article. But if he'd read the article a little closer he would have been aware that most cheeses, although classified in general usage as "dairy products", do not produce the symptoms of lactose intolerance because fermentation, aging and other processes typically used in cheesemaking greatly reduce or eliminate lactose. Now that he has witnessed what he believes to be a strict falsification of this article he feels free to pile on the "counter evidence"— perhaps he sees a Japanese person or two drinking a white liquid and tells himself "Hah! Japanese all over the place chugging large quantities of milk!". But in reality these folks were drinking soy milk (it's quite popular in Japan) and still nothing in the article is actually contradicted.... Japanese government health agencies and Japanese doctors are fully aware of the problems that Western-style dairy consumption pose for their people, and it is true many Japanese and other non-Western-Eurasians simply assume they can eat or drink anything advertised on American TV and in American magazines. References to government and food-industry efforts to educate the Japanese man/woman-in-the-street on this are easy to find on the Web. What we have here is yet another example of something I run across all the time— a certain subset of well-meaning Americans and Europeans are hypersensitive to any evidence that real, systemic biological differences do in fact exist between world populations (or, if you prefer, between "races"), and they will wriggle every which way to deny such evidence because it tends to undercut ideals regarding the "oneness of humanity" they have cherished for decades. Of course, these objectively real but rather minor biological differences cannot be construed by any honest thinker to point to anything resembling an overall superiority of any major group over any other, but folks like our anon user worry about it all the same and try to undermine the reporting of these differences. Folks, it won't work and you might as well resolve to celebrate human diversity as it really exists on the ground, as distinct from how it exists in your self-censored imaginations. JDG 10:26, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
JDG, systemic biological differences even exist within people of races (even when not including the issue of gender)! I think you’re over analyzing his claim, what is happening here is he is taking eyewitness account to be more relevant then scientific studies. I can through eyewitness account purport that the earth is flat! It is though eye witness accounts that we likely get most of the world miss-information, you have to use the scientific method before even coming close to believing something is fact: you have to test, theorize and verify repeatedly (usually through more then one party). Of course most people don’t have the time for that so they assume and use the most basic observation as proof: he sees some Japanese people drinking milk and thus assumes lactose intolerance is false, without either doing a statistical study, measuring lactase levels in the people (they could have just be part of a minority of lactose tolerant Japanese), or measuring the lactose levels in the food they were eating and drink (as mention soymilk and most cheeses are not a danger). --BerserkerBen 22:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
As a very lactose intolerant Japanese, I often feel like most sources on the web are being duped by dairy propaganda. "You can drink a few cups of milk every day and not feel bodily discomfort even if you're lactose intolerant!" - yeah, right. —67.167.83.192 00:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I don't rememeber the source anymore, and I don't know how credible it was in the first place, but I did google around a bit on this topic some time ago, and I read that the Japanese school system encourages the drinking of milk from a young age onwards, which would supposedly artificially stimulate the continued production of lactase. --Dolda2000 16:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm ethnically Chinese and my subjective view is that lactose intolerance is not as serious as people claim. Most Chinese don't seem to have much problem with eating things made with milk like bread (those baked in HK have milk added), cakes, pastries like egg tarts or ice-cream. They don't even have much problem with condensed or evaporated milk. But when you start drinking fresh milk troubles start for many people, and I myself have this tendency as well. Even this varies with the situation - I have seen that if you force yourself to drink milk everyday, eventually it seems the symptoms subside. --JNZ 12:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
A notice from the Japanese ministry of education used to prescribe, in the standard set of foods to be provided in school lunches, that 200 ml of milk should be given daily to elementary school children. That prescription has been removed in the most recent revision of the notice, but it still says that drinking of milk should be promoted in schools (in Japanese: [1]). I can say from personal experience that milk really was provided in school lunches at least in the 1980s, and though it was not popular among some, most of the children did drink it. Most of us Japanese are supposed to be lactose intolerant, but the main article says that even such individuals can drink some amount of milk without severe symptoms, so there is no immediate contradiction. Re: JDG's comment, soy milk is popular in Japan, but not so much as cow milk, at least not yet (best statistics I can find say 200 kiloliters of soy-related beverages including soy milk, and 4000 kiloliters of milk for drinking, were consumed in 2004). Dairy propaganda and anti-dairy propaganda, both seem to be very prevalent on the web... 210.248.188.53 21:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Makes sense-- if people that

hadn't evolved the genetic basis of lactose tolerance were completely unable to benefit from milk, it's hard to see how selection on those genes could have begun.68.35.68.100 14:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


Around 95% of Chinese and SE Asians are lactose intolerant?! Odd, very odd. Does that apply to Powdered milk (fresh milk being rare and expensive)?

[edit] Phenotype properties?

I'm wondering if "lactase persistency" can be categorized either as a dominant or recessive trait? E.g. what phenotype will an offspring, parented by a lactose intolerant and lactase persistent person, be? -anonymous 04:03, 5 August, 2005 (UTC)

The trait is not controlled by a single set of genes, and it would be diffucult to say what the results would be. --BerserkerBen 21:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Etiology

This section is misnamed? Etiology means is the study of causation of a problem, as such one should discuss genetic mutations in populations, and effect of (usually) temporary lactose intolerance after a bout of gastroenteritis (especially in children and after giardiasis infections). The current section is more about the consequences of being lactase deficient, ie why this causes the symptoms that it does. A better title for current section might be 'Symptomatology' or 'Pathophysiology of symptoms'. David Rubentalk 19:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Data table sample size

Just how relevant are the statistics in the data table if the sample sizes of some groups are in the 20s? I understand it probably reflects the population very roughly, but if anyone can find a similar study with larger sample sizes I think that would make a stronger point.

Not very, to have 95% assurance that you are within +/-4% of the true value you need to survey 1000 people! A survey of 20 people is not a statistically significant survey for a population of millions and billions. --BerserkerBen 21:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lactose intolerance in Finland

Its seems to me that there is unfaith in the "condition" of lactose intolerance.

As for a fact it does exist. 1 out of 6 finnish simply get bloating, stomach ache and diarrhea for digesting milk products. As milk still strongly exists in our traditional diet, the scientists have developed a range of milk products, where the lactose has chemically been removed and are widely available at the stores. No need to remember to take additives before the meal or look for other ways of getting calcium to our diets. As this is patented invention, I recommend people in need for these to contact VALIO ltd. on importing these to you.

At the moment your addition looks like an advertisement. It should be supported with reliable data/sources or it does not qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia. JFW | T@lk 23:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] HYLA & 2001?

There's a section in the text that reads "In 2001, a Finnish research group developed "HYLA" products, which are milk products low in lactose, ranging from .." I was born in Finland in 1982, and I don't remember a time without HYLA products, but then again those were (and are) UHT stuff, not made with the cromatography method, I think .. but in any case: in it's current form the section gives the false impression that HYLA is a marking mainly associated with something developed in 2001 (I think Valio released "Evolus" products in 2001?) ..

[edit] Dairy 'allergy'

The article implies the existence of a 'dairy allergy'. Does anyone have any information on the prevalence of this? If it exists as stated in the article, affecting people who ingest both milk and hard cheese, then what I (and my doctor) have been calling lactose intolerance is actually a dairy allergy (as I react on both). --Kickstart70 21:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

A Dairy allergy is a immunological reaction to dairy products, it will have both different symptoms (usually rash, hives, diarrhea, cough, and/or runny nose) and different medical tests that can distinguish it from lactose intolerance. It may be that the hard cheese that you have eaten still contains levels of lactose that you are intolerant to, ask your doctor to conduct a “skin prick” test in which a small amount of dairy antigens is poked into a spot on your skin, if you have a allergy to dairy products you will get a rash at that spot, if not then your reaction to dairy products is more likely due to intolerance. It may be possible that you may have both a dairy allergy and lactose intolerance, this would mean positive results for both a prick test and a medical lactose intolerance test. A dairy allergy though is a much more serious problem then lactose intolerance, as accidental ingestion of dairy products could cause life-threatening anaphylactic shock. --BerserkerBen 00:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
In plain English, dairy allergy means that your body's immune system is actively attacking lactose as if it were a foreign invader like a virus or bacterium. Lactose intolerance is simply the inherited inability to produce enough lactase to properly break down lactose into galactose and glucose. Then the undigested lactose goes to feed the E.coli in your intestines instead. --Coolcaesar 20:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Dairy allergies are generally not reactions to the sugar, but rather to the proteins. The two conditions are really completely unrelated, except for the symptoms being brought on by consumption of dairy. This distinction is important when considering dairy alternatives, as a lactose intolerant person can consume certain things (most soy cheeses, for example) that someone with an allergy cannot, as cheese substitutes often use milk proteins to make them melt better. --Icarus 01:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
A followup on this, hopefully helpful to someone: I, after 13 years of no dairy at all, tried extra aged (4 year) white cheddar, lactose-free swiss cheese, and goat feta. No symptoms at all! Thanks for the help here, the pizza was wonderful. --Kickstart70·Talk 16:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

to User Kickstart70 and others this information on dairy allergies should be included in the article titled "Milk Allergy". Some reference between these pages should be made so that the distinction between Lactose Intolerance and Milk Allergy would be clear. alexselkirk1704 16Jun06

[edit] African Fulani people

I added the statements about the Fulani people in the History of Genetic Prevalence. They were once a nomadic dairy consuming people and I thought it would enrich the article by adding a small blurb about them.

Leward03 18:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] India

Are there any studies on lactose intolerance in India, and (now this would be where it might get fascinating) on regional and social distribution? Given that the Aryans introduced the cow to India, and only used it for dairy rather than meat-production purposes (and raised not eating cow meat to a religion - and a caste mark) their descendants would probably have very high rates of tolerance, while the descendants of the earlier inhabitants probably would not. Lewis

I found a few references for Indian lactose intolerance, both segregated by age and location.--Filll 22:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A glass of milk per day?

I just want to add my personal thoughts on this article's statement that "Lactose-intolerant adults can drink about 250 ml (8 oz) of milk per day without severe symptoms (McGee 2004) (Swagerty et al. 2002)." I am a lactose-intolerant adult, and if I tried to drink even one glass of milk, I would pay for it. And believe me, I love the taste of dairy products. If I could "cheat" with impunity I would be eating ice cream and pizza on a regular basis. Perhaps I have a more severe form of lactose intolerance than the average afflicted adult, but I think that most people who can consume dairy products in moderation don't self-identify as lactose intolerant.

70.181.11.107 02:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's an average, not a firm rule. And are you sure you don't have a milk allergy? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I find this seemingly inaccurate as well. I am lactose intolerant, and if I drink half a cup of milk, I get severe abdominable pains and bloating, followed up by a nice case of diarrhea. That statement is entirely too misleading, even if it is an "average." -- Punchinelli 16:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
So find a good source. Wikipedia is about sourced information, not personal anecdotes. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Just because something is sourced, doesn't mean it belongs on Wikipedia. If Wikipedia misleads the readers, it isn't fulfilling its purpose. This statement about drinking milk without severe symptoms is misleading, despite the sourced reference. It makes the statement very concretely, TOO concretely. Perhaps change the sentence around to something alone the lines of, "Some sources say adults can drink about 250 ml of milk per day without severe symptoms. The degree of lactose intolerance varies per adult; some cannot ingest any milk at all, else severe symptoms will occur." Check out this link: http://digestive.niddk.nih.gov/ddiseases/pubs/lactoseintolerance/
"Most older children and adults do not have to avoid lactose completely, but people differ in the amounts and types of foods they can handle. For example, one person may have symptoms after drinking a small glass of milk, while another can drink one glass but not two. Others may be able to manage ice cream and aged cheeses, such as cheddar and Swiss, but not other dairy products. People can also tolerate more lactose by having smaller amounts of it at one time. The level of dietary control needed with lactose intolerance depends on how much lactose a person’s body can handle."
This is a much less concrete statement. The statement "Lactose-intolerant adults can drink about 250 ml (8 oz) of milk per day without severe symptoms" is misleading, despite the source. Please give feedback on whether or not this should be altered. Thanks! -- Punchinelli 13:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it is misleading if it is based on an average statistic (is it?), if so it could be improved by saying “the average Lactose-intolerant adults…”. I don't have a problem with the quotes above being used to model a rephrase, just a long as the quotes are not copied verbatim off another page."--BerserkerBen 18:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd agree to that. At least put in "the average" or "most" or "some" before the sentence starts. Whoever wants to change it, run with it. Else I will later today. -- Punchinelli 18:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I just checked the Swagerty sourcing, and it says, "The degree of lactose malabsorption varies greatly among patients with lactose intolerance, but most of them can ingest up to 12 oz of milk daily without symptoms. " I'm therefore changing the sentence in the first paragraph of this article to say "Most." -- Punchinelli 20:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Perfect. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] inconsistency with regards to sub-saharan africa

We say:

most modern East Asians, sub-Saharan Africans and native peoples of the Americas and Pacific Islands do not [show the effects of the lactase-persistance mutation]

But the map we display right below, whose data is attributed to a 1972 Scientific American article, shows that it's only the southern third or so of Africa (the southern half of sub-saharan Africa) where "most" people are lactose-intolerant, while the middle third (the northern half of sub-saharan Africa, e.g. Nigeria, Ghana, Cameroon) seems to have populations who are mostly lactose-tolerant. We also say that some scientists think there was an independent more recent mutation in East Africa. Are there additional (maybe more recent) sources with better data we can cite to clear this up? --Delirium 06:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I put a link in to a University of Alabama Professor's lecture slides with a similar map. I also included a lot more data from other sources.--Filll 22:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LATEST AAP REPORT ON LACTOSE INTOLERANCE

Thank you Thirdy Jim James Beijing

I wish to inform everybody that the American Academy of Pediatrics have just published its latest clinical report "Lactose Intolerance in Infants, Children, and Adolescents" in the September 2006 issue of its peer-reviewed and scientific journal, Pediatrics.

You may read thru the full text of the report at http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/3/1279 or download the free PDF document version.

I hope all of you can find some level of satisfaction. Please read the article carefully. THIRDY

[edit] The Map

I would remove this map, because it's ridiculously uninformative. Of all continents, only in Africa there is more than three countries not classified as "no data", and the footer says: "African countries are only a rough guess". So, there are only six countries in the whole world, for which the map has any sense! --Grzes 14:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it could do with more data! For example, I'd be very interested to see data on India, Pakistan, Israel, may be some Roma communities too. Futurix 12:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
It is just a start. I put a link to another map in the outside links and I put a lot more data that can be plotted on our map.--Filll 22:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I updated the map, still is filling in countries based on vague information, caption probably should say "most countries are a rough guess", but I think it is better. Kmusser 02:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree with this opinion and would even say that in some cases this map is highly misleading. Just seeing the percentages shown for Argentina, Chile and Uruguay (all countries with a great majority of European descent) their high levels of lactose intolerance are in complete disagreement with the text. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.145.230.2 (talk) 12:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

The map is a work in progress, and as we collect more data, it can become more accurate. If you dislike the paucity of data in our map, I would humbly suggest that you help us find more well-sourced data! There is a lot on the internet, and I have tracked down about 2/3 of the current data listed in our table. I am sure I have not exhausted what exists on this topic, however, and a lot more could be done. I just temporarily ran out of energy for this enterprise. Another difficult arises when there are different populations in an area with widely different rates of lactose intolerance. For example, many indigenous populations have very different rates of lactose intolerance than immigrants, especially from Europe. So the Ainu and the Japanese exhibit different rates of lactose intolerance. Native Americans and European Americans have different rates of lactose intolerance, and so on. Perhaps we can consider a different type of display, such as two maps; one for indigenous populations and one for immigrant populations. I am not sure. Suggestions are welcome.--Filll 19:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lactase-enzyme medication

Lactose intolerance#Lactase-enzyme_medication does not cite anything. All I can find when googling for lactase medication are fishy supplement vendors. Pubmed has (PMID 12712706 & PMID 11906576) very little about the subject. Can someone find double-blind trials, stuff like that?

--Stereo 03:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Since there are no references, I removed the section. -- Stereo 04:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
PMID 11906576 had a placebo arm in the study.
There is also "Physicochemical characteristics of commercial lactases relevant to their application in the alleviation of lactose intolerance" PMID 16943638 "suggesting that consumption of several capsules, as opposed to the usually recommended one or two, would be required" as the enzyme is rapidly broken down by stomach pH and that this "may in part explain the variability and often disappointing results previously reported for lactase-based clinical trials and will provide comparative baseline data against which candidate second-generation lactases may be assessed.".
Also see "Management and treatment of lactose malabsorption" PMID 16482616 which looks at approaches other than dairy exclusion. Use of lactase drops to pre-hydrolyse milk seems effective, but "Solid lactase preparations, in capsules and tablets, are commercially available alternatives for enzyme-replacement therapy. Several studies have investigated and confirmed their efficacy [25-26]. However, comparative studies have shown that these preparations are more expensive and significantly less effective than prehydrolyzed milk probably due to the enzyme gastric inactivation [11, 17]. Their use can be suggested for solid dairy products"
I think this is enough information to add the subject back in. That said no study looks at "convenience", so as a Lactose intollerant person, whilst yes dairy avoiding or pre-hydrolysing milk works best, out in a restaurant with that lovely creamy sauce over a meal, the only option is to take the tablets at that time (even if the evidence shows that these are less effective - but then I only do this occasionally) David Ruben Talk 01:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! I agree that the article now has enough references to put the part back. Perhaps it could be made clearer that lactase pills are no silver bullet. -- Stereo (talk) 05:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
As a lactose-intolerant person myself, I've found using lactaid tablets has totally changed things for me. I didn't know I was intolerant for the first 10 or so years suffering from it. But now that I do, taking 1 tablet with any dairy product I've never once had a problem, going on 4-5 years now. I find it weird that more isn't discussed about this in the main page. It's so convenient and successful. I use avoidance for milk (lactose-free milk) but tablets for ice cream and whatever else. For me at least, totally effective. Jonathan Roy 20:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Map needed

We need an updated version of our map, now that we have more data. One of the references also shows a map to compare with, from the lecture of a Professor at University of Alabama. --Filll 02:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More references

SHIBUYA, S., F. YAMASHITA, T. FUNATSU, Fr AL. Lactose intolerance in Japanese children. Advan. Med. (Japan.) 72: 323, 1970.


The relative frequency of acquired primary hypolactasia has been determined in adult Maoris, Samoans and Europeans by measuring an alteration in breath hydrogen concentration two hours after a 50 g oral lactose load. By this indirect measurement hypolactasia was present in 64% of Maoris, 54% of Samoans and 9% of Europeans. The differences between Maoris and Europeans (p less than 0.001) and between Samoans and Europeans (p less than 0.001) were significant.


Lactose malabsorption was studied by a breath hydrogen technique in 139 Samoan and 68 white schoolchildren. The Samoans were studied in four locations, two in Western Samoa and two in New Zealand, and the white children in both the Cook Islands and New Zealand. The prevalence of malabsorption varied with location: for Samoans it ranged from 41% to 60% in Western Samoa and 0% to 35% in New Zealand; white children had rates of 27% in the Cook Islands and 5% in New Zealand. Environmental factors rather than genetic factors are likely to play the main part in initiating if not perpetuating lactose malabsorption. In both races lactose malabsorption had no effect on the acceptance of, consumption of, and number of gastrointestinal symptoms caused by milk and milk biscuits. Children who had symptoms after consuming a particular dairy product were more likely to say they disliked it than those who reported no symptoms.

The breath hydrogen test (BHT) was adapted for use in young infants and children. The diagnostic criterion of sugar malabsorption in the BHT was determined by oral administration of 0.5 g/kg of unabsorbable sugar (lactulose) to 21 healthy infants and children. A maximum increase in breath hydrogen less than 0.05 ml/min per m2 was observed in all subjects. A good correlation between results by the BHT and by the ordinary lactose tolerance test was obtained after oral administration of 2 g/kg lactose to 21 healthy infants and children, 2 congenital lactase-deficient infants, and 7 adults. Using this test, 80 healthy Japanese infants and children (aged between one month and 15 years) and 18 adults were examined for lactose malabsorption after a dose of 1 g/kg lactose. All infants and children under 2-years old absorbed lactose completely. The incidence of lactose malabsorption was 30% in 3-year, 36% in 4-year, 58% in 5-year, and 86% in 6-year-old children, 85% in schoolchildren, and 89% in adults. Thus the incidence of lactase deficiency gradually increases with age from 3 years, and about 90% of all normal Japanese adults are lactase-deficient.



1. Alzante, H. Gonzalez, H. and Guzman, J. “Lactose intolerance in South American Indians.” Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 22: 122, (1969).

2. Amiot, D., Hioco, D. and Durlach, J. “Frequence du deficit magnesique chez le sujet et dans diverses osteopathies.” J. Med. Besancon 5:371-378, (1969).

3. Aurbach, GD., Marx, S.J. and Spiegel, AM. ”Parathyroid Hormone, Calcitonin, and Calciferols.” In textbook of Endocrinology, Williams, RH. (Ed), Saunders Co., 922-1032, (1981).

4. Aviolo, LV. “Postmenopausal osteoporosis: prevention versus cure.” Fed. Proc. 40: 2418, (1981).

5. Briscoe, A.M. and Ragen, C. “Relation of magnesium on calcium metabolism in man.” Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 19: 296-306, (1966).

6. Bryan, W.T.K. and Bryan, M.P. ”Cytotoxic Reactions in the Diagnosis of Food Allergy.” Otol. N. Am. 4: 523-533, (1971).

7. Bygrave, F.L. “Cellular Calcium and Magnesium Metabolism.” In An Introduction to Bio-inorganic Chemistry. Williams, D. R. (Ed) Thomas, 171-184, (1976).

8. Cook. G.C. and Kajubi, SK. “Tribal incidence of lactase deficiency in Uganda.” Lancet l: 725, (1966).

9. Davidson, S., Passmore. R., Brock, J.F. and Truswell, AS. “Human Nutrition and Dietetics.” Churchill Livingstone, 166-175, (1979).

10. Davidson, S., Passmore, R., Brock, J.F. and Truswell, A.S. “Human Nutrition and Dietetics.” Churchill Livingstone, 90-106. (1979).

11. Draper, H.H. and Scythes, C.A. ”Calcium, phosphorous, and osteoporosis.” Fe. Proc. 40: 2434, (1984).

12. DuRuisseau, J.P. and Marineau, J.M. “Osteoporose medication calcique et magnesienne,” See Int’l Sympos on Magnesium, 223-226, (1971/1973).

13. Gilat, T., et. al. “Lactase deficiency in Jewish communities in Israel.” Am J. Digest. Dis. 16:203, (1971).

14. Gilat. T., et. al “Lactose intolerance in an Arab population.” Am. J. Digest. Dis. 16:203, (1977)

15. Gudmand-hoyer, and F., Jarnum, S. “Lactose malabsorption in Greenland Eskimos.” Acta Med. Scand. 186:235, (1969).

16. Holick, M.F. and Clark, MB. “The photobiogenesis and metabolism of Vitamin D.” Fed. Proc. 37: 2567-2574, (1978).

17. Huang, S.S. and Bayless, T.M. “Milk and lactose intolerance in healthy orientals.” Science 160: 83, (1968).

18. Johnson, J.D., et. al. “Lactose malabsorption among the Pima Indians of Arizona.” Gastroenterology 73: 985, (1977).

19. Kretchmer, N., et.al. “Intestinal absorption of lactose in Nigerian ethnic groups.” Lancet 2: 392, (l971).

20. Larkins, R.G., McAuley, S.J., Colston, K.W., Evans, I.M.A., Galante, L.S. and Macintyre, I. “Regulation of Vitamin D. Metabolism without Parathyroid Hormone.” Lancet: 289-291, (1973).

21. Linkswiler, H.M., Zemel, M.B., Hegsted, M., and Schuette, S. “Protein-induced hypercalciuria.” Fed. Proc. 40:2429, (1981).

22. MacIntyre, I. “Vitamin D and the integration of Calcium Regulating Hormones.” In First European Symposium on hormones and Cell Regulation. Dumont, J. and Nunez. J. (Ed) North Holland, 195-208, (1977).

23. Nasrallah, SM. “Lactose intolerance in the Lebanese population and in ‘Mediterranean lymphoma’.” Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 32:1994-1996, (1979).

24. Newcomer, AD., et. al. “Family studies of lactose deficiency in the American Indian.” Gastroenterology 73; 1299, (1977).

25. Parlier. R., Hioco, D. and LeBlanc, R. “Les troubles du metacolisme magnesien. Symptomes et traitment des carences et des plethores magnesiennes.” Rev. Franc. Endocr. Clin. 4: 335-339, (1963).

26. Rude, R.K., Bethune, J.E. and Singer, F.R. “Renal tubular maximum for magnesium in normal, hyperparathyroid and hypoparathyroid man.” J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 51: 1425-1431, (1980).

27. Schrier, R.W. and Leaf, A. “Effect of Hormones on Water, Sodium, Chloride, and Potassium Metabolism.” In Textbook of Endocrinology, Williams RH. (Ed) Saunders Co., 1032-

28. Seelig, MS. “Magnesium Deficiency in the Pathogenesis of Disease.” Plenum Medical Book Company, 3 17-321, (1980).

29. Seeman, E. and Riggs, B.L. “Dietary prevention of bone loss in the elderly.” Geriatrics 36:71-79, (1981).

30. Senewiratne, B., et. al. “Intestinal lactase deficiency in Ceylon (Sri Lanka).” Gastroenterology 72:1257, (1977).

31. Shibuya, S. et. al. “Lactose intolerance in Japanese children.” Advan. Med (Japan). 72:323, (1970). --Filll 02:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] lactose-free US availability/soy alternatives

I'm a bit puzzled by:

"In America over recent years (1990–2000) there has been a notable increase of available lactose-reduced and lactose-free dairy products; examples being cottage cheese, American cheese and ice cream."

I just haven't found this to be true. I'll agree that there has been a notable increase of lactose-free dairy products. I can get lactose-free milk and at this time of year eggnog everywhere, and I'm not limited in choice either. I can get fatfree, 1%, 2& or regular milk, and there are multiple companies. I also know that there is lactose free cheese and ice-cream carried at some specialty places though soy is much more common. There are a few products which utilize lactose free products--there is a frozen mac and cheese which is lactose free. But I've never seen lactose free cottage cheese, or anything else really. And the only thing that I can get with ease is milk and eggnog. Cheese and ice cream are harder to find.

I can get almost everything soy--soy ice cream, sour cream, cream cheese, milk, eggnog, yoghurts and cheeses of every variety, everything. And while having a soy alternative for every product in existence is nice, it's not the same as having lactose free milk products. I'm really confused by this article saying that there has been a resurgence starting 16, or well now 17 years ago, that includes products I simply can't find 17 years later TStein 10:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lactose intolerance among Masai

I remember reading about how the Masai, even though they exhibit certain features of lactose intolerance by western tests, still can consume milk without ill effects. So there is some confusion about what lactose intolerance really means and what the tests are measuring. There is some other processes involved here. Anyone know anything about this?--Filll 23:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allele frequency N/A??

I do not understand why most of the table listing frequency of lactose intolerance in the column "Allele frequency" says "N/A"? Since the gene is recessive the allele frequency should be equal to the square root of the frequency of the population that is lactose intolerant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.180.136.145 (talk) 15:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] ACCLIMATING THE BODY TO DAIRY PRODUCTS

THANKS FOR THE LACTOSE CURE. I ALWAYS GO TO WIKIPEDIA FOR CURE CUZ ER1 IN THE WORLD DONT KNOW. I HAD HICCUPS BEFORE N WIKIPEDIA CURED ME SO KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK. ALSO I GOT LACTOSE INTOLERANT CUZ I WAS DRINKING MILK ERDAY THEN STOPPED FOR A MONTH N SOMIN FUCKED UP —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.195.132.253 (talk) 04:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] South America in the map

Although one source says that up to 75% of South Americans are intolerant, this shouldn't be taken as uniform for every South American country. I don't think that Bolivia, for example, with 75% of native population has the same percentage of Argentina, which is 97% white according to the CIA World Factbook. If the figure is taken as unique for all South America, then the national borders should be deleted from the map. Also, Tierra del Fuego is part of South America.--cloviz 14:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course. So go find us more data and sources.--Filll 15:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Wrong information cannot always be replaced; sometimes it has to be deleted. It is much better to say nothing rather than wrong information; don't you think? I just know the map is wrong because it suggests that the percentages are uniform through South America. If you have data of a heterogeneous region as a whole, it's obvious that the map should display the region as one thing; not as if the data were correct for each country alone. And I don’t know how to edit one of these maps. By the way, nowhere it says that a person must have sources to raise a comment here.--cloviz 01:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course you are free to write it here. But this all takes work. And if you volunteer to do the work, then it would be appreciated.--Filll 01:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I tried to find data on the prevalence of lactose intolerance by country, in order to make the map more accurate; but I didn't find any, and now I think that the map should be removed. The data on the article is obviously too scarce and irregular to make a map. Some of the information is about countries, some about regions, and some about ethnic groups; thus, the map is incapable of providing a reliable means of comparison, which is its purpose. It also seems to imply that lactose intolerance has something to do with political division: why does the Democratic Republic of the Congo have a prevalence of 11-20%, while their (also mainly Bantu) neighbors have 81-90%? What's that mysterious line that abruptly divides France in 11-20% and 61-70%? How comes there is such a sharp, marked difference in the middle of France, while all South America (a very heterogeneous region) has uniform percentages? I don’t want to offend the person that made the map; it’s a very good attempt. I just think it’s not precise enough to be shown in an encyclopedia yet...--cloviz 01:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lactose maldigestion

A book I was reading for a nutrition course mentions "Lactose maldigestion" but I do not see it here.
Gordon and Smith (2006) state the following about primary and secondary lactose maldigestion:
"Primary lactose maldigestion occurs when production of the enzyme lactase declines for no apparent reason. Secondary lactose maldigestion occurs when a specific cause, such as long-standing diarrhea, results in a decline in lactase production. When significant symptoms develop after lactose intake, it is then called lactose intolerance" (p. 138).

Wardlaw, Gordon M., & Smith, Anne M. (2006). Contemporary Nutrition : Issues and Insights (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0–07–250185–5
Hi, I'm new at this, I'm sorry. Have a nice day :) Tortellini 05:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intolerance varies

It seems that we know that most humans have some level of lactose intolerance. And we know that among those humans, the level of lactose tolerance varies. *** It may be useful to give a definition of a threshold level, to separate out tolerance from intolerance, at least for medical purposes, if doctors have set one. And it might even be of a little use to give an idea of how much lactose an "average" intolerant person can tolerate. But the main thrust should be to give a clear concept of the great range of tolerance among the intolerant. -69.87.204.193 21:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Food helps digest Milk?

It seems like I can take milk with oatmeal in the morning with no problems. But milk or ice cream in the evening lead to "intestinal distress". Maybe just because the milk with the oatmeal is a small amount. But maybe milk with food is less of a problem than milk alone? -69.87.204.193 21:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment: Platform for original research?

Note: this dispute has been concluded with the removal of the offending text (see below). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sagie (talk • contribs) 16:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

This is a dispute about whether this article (and possibly other articles) are may be used as a platform for original research for the sake of being "helpful to people needing to reduce their symptoms", as put by the contributor of the sections containing the original research. 18:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Text under dispute

The user Tallard has contributed two paragraphs to the article, whose current content is as follows:

Because lactose is a common commercial food additive (it is used for texture, flavor and its adhesive qualities), it is important for lactose intolerant people to be especially careful in avoiding products that whilst not apparently dairy (or are dairy but normally contain low amounts of lactose) nonetheless contain lactose. Such products include commercial sausages (notably frankfurters), medications which may contain lactose as a filler, most meal replacement powders and protein bars, cottage cheese, many "granola" style cereals, pancakes, crepes, custards, 90% of margarines (added for texture), 70% of flavored potato/corn chips (added as an adhesive for the spices), most frozen meals, "double wrapped" sliced bread, some dried fruit, even yogurts containing carageenan or gelatin, at the other end, full fat yogurts are nearly lactose free.
It is of great use to understand that because lactose is a water soluble molecule, milk based dairy products have more lactose than cream based dairy products: full ice creams, real camembert, real brie, full fat sour cream, full fat yogurts, butter, etc contain little to no lactose. Conversely "low fat" and "diet" dairy products are rife with lactose, especially products like "I can't believe it's not butter", which is mostly buttermilk, is very high in lactose! The upside of it is that the partially tolerant amongst us can still eat the most interesting dairy foods, i.e. butter and whipped cream, as long as it's not the diet version! The word "skim milk" on any ingredient list should be avoided at all costs. Since lactose is a sugar, you can get an indication of the lactose content of any dairy product by checking the nutritional analysis. For many butters and cheeses, the sugar content is zero or less than 0.1%, showing that they must either be free of lactose or contain only a negligible amount.
Statements by editors previously involved in dispute
Comments
The contributing user Tallard has contributed original research (verified as original research by himself/herself, see here) and claims that his contribution need not comply to the aformentioned policies due to:
  1. lack of research in this topic (as claimed by the user).
  2. the fact that his contribution's "only purpose is to be helpful to people needing to reduce their symptoms"
As it stands the section has a huge problem with Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer in that it's trying to help people diagnose a medical condition. Nuts to the OR or SYNTH or whatever problems, the editor is exposing himself and Wikipedia to serious legal liability - it needs to be fixed. Badly. WilyD 19:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree that the content should only be included if it is verifiable and backed up with sources. If it is as it stands above then it is unverifiable and leaning on original research. Wikipedia is not an advisor for people with medical conditions, nor is it a publisher of original thought due to the lack of external published research on a subject.-Localzuk(talk) 18:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • As others have said, this definitely needs to be backed up by reliable sources and rewritten in an encyclopedic tone. I'd be inclined to leave much of this out, due to the legal/moral/etc hazards of providing original-research medical advice, until it's appropriately changed and sourced, except for the important point that lactose is used as an ingredient in things which aren't dairy products per se. This should be a simple thing to find appropriate sources for (if nothing else, product labels provide a primary source), and is a fairly vital point to have in an article about lactose intolerance, as it doesn't tend to occur to people that they may be ingesting lactose in, for example, their allergy medicine. Pinball22 20:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Official policy also says "Wikipedia articles should not include instructions or advice (legal, medical, or otherwise)" — Demong talk 20:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Right... if it wasn't clear, I was agreeing with the fact that the section as it stands is in violation of that -- the one thing I think is worth keeping I want to see in the form of a fact, something like "non-dairy foods and medicines often contain lactose as an ingredient". Pinball22 21:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Erm, yeah, sorry... I was just pointing to the piece of policy that unambiguously opposes content that is "helpful to people needing to reduce their symptoms" (that is, the advice would be unencyclopedic/inappropriate even if it wasn't OR). And it wasn't meant as a direct reply to your comment (I agree completely that relevant, useful, cited facts should be included). Mind if I reformat a bit? — Demong talk 21:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Sure, reformat away. :) Pinball22 21:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
This passage as it currently stands is still not very good. Its source is still not cited--and frankly, I think the unprofessional tone and questionable content of the original contribution is enough not to give the remaining information any benefit of doubt. Even the remaining material, in fact, belies its irrelevance to the topic at hand with its talk of milk allergies. As the responsible portions of this article make clear, lactose intolerance is akin to the discomfort from foods like beans; most patients can consume a serving of milk per day with other foods, and none have to go about exercising the kind of caution appropriate to food allergies or celiac disease--worrying about "negligible dairy residues" remaining on processing equipment after cleaning, and so forth.
Even if this weren't the case, in fact, the passage is nakedly nonsensical. One portion is centered entirely around slamming "diet" foods for being "rife" with lactose; basing itself apparently on the obvious truth that a low-fat version of a food will be slightly higher in lactose than its full-fat counterpart, it bizarrely extends this into a cross-category comparison that assures readers that e.g. "full-fat ice cream" and whipped cream, completely unprocessed foods that are made from skim milk with a little added butterfat and sugar, contain "little or no lactose," whereas margarine is "very high in lactose," hard cheeses are to be avoided if they're low-fat, and merely seeking skim milk on the ingredient list is enough to "avoid it at all costs!"
In the absense of any objection, I plan to delete everything in that section from the last citation (5) on. As I've said, the whole contribution is so pervasively corrupt that no portion deserves the benefit of the doubt without citation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.59.32.198 (talk) 20:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC).
  • I can't see any justification for relaxing the standards of verifiability in this article, no matter how passionate any of the editors may be. Wikipedia policies, standards, and guidelines should be followed in this article as much as any other. SheffieldSteel 21:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Removal of offending material
  • As there appears to be a concensus in this subject (excluding the contributor of the offending material), I have accodingly removed the offending text. --Sagie 16:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Digestive Advantage for Lactose Intolerance

I became lactose intolerant almost a year ago. I started taking these once-daily pills that have been working great ever since. It's call Digestive Advantage for Lactose Intolerance. Shouldn't this be mentioned in the article? Are there any similar products? Danny 18:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It should only be mentioned in a netural fashion such as 'There are several products available which aim to reduce the symptoms of lactose intolerance' with a couple of references to said products. Don't mention them by name as that is not really the purpose of Wikipedia.-Localzuk(talk) 18:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

the drugs used to avoid the symptoms of lactose intolerance contain an enzyme that digests the lactose for the patient (lactose intolerant patients are missing this enzyme (lactase))

[edit] Recent edits

I apologize for mucking up the edit history with repeated edits; I'm quite new at this. Nearly all the edits were corrections of a word or two from what I'd added previously; the more substantial portions are pretty much cleanups and additions of uncontroversial information. I hope anyone trying to follow them won't be too angry that I haven't made it as easy as I should. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.212.74.209 (talk) 07:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] lactose intolerance in Eatern Slavs

Frequency of lactose intolerance in Eastern Slavs is evaluated as 40-50% (but not 15%) according to measuring the blood glucose level after lactose ingestion and according to DNA analysis of population samples of Russians, Ukrainians, and Belorussians. Frequency of lactose intolerance in indigenous peoples of Sibera is more than 90%. Valenkevich and his colleagues ([9] in table 'Lactose intolerance by group') used some unusual criteria of lactose intolerance diagnosis resulting in understated of intolerance and two or three fold lower frequency of intolerance.

See Borinskaya et al., Molecular diagnosis and frequencies of primary hypolactasia in populations of RUSSIA and neighboring countries]// Mol Biol (Mosk). 2006 Nov-Dec;40(6):1031-6 (in Russian). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=17209431&query_hl=8&itool=pubmed_docsum

The journal Molecular Biology is available online by http://springeronline.com/journal/11008 ISSN (online): 1608-3245


See also Kozlov A., Lisitsyn D. History of dairy cattle-breeding and distribution of LAC*R and LAC*P alleles among European populations // In: C.Renfrew & K.Boyle (Eds). Archaeogenetics: DNA and the population prehistory of Europe. — Cambridge: McDonald Institute for archaeological Research, 2000, 309-313.

213.141.131.93 08:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] USA-centric view of world

"Other dairy products, except butter and milk-protein supplements, are similarly rich in calcium and potassium; none, however, are normally fortified with vitamins A or D. Dairy substitutes, such as soy or rice, are not naturally rich in calcium, potassium, or vitamins A or D (and, like all nonanimal products, contain no vitamin B12). Prominent brands of these products, however, are often voluntarily fortified with many of these nutrients (this is typically advertised prominently on the packaging, since it is not required by law)....."

Someone seems to have forgotten that America is not the only country in the world. The details above would vary from country to country. I believe Wikipedia is being written for an international audience, not just a USA one.--—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Look Wikipedia is replete with this kind of error and worse. And you know how to fix it? It is to get a user name and to edit the article accordingly.--Filll 14:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Genetic disposition?

The reference #2 (soynutrition.com link) does not support the preceding wikipedia statements about recessive genes. In fact, the article states nothing about genetics. Can anyone back up that information? Jwigton 04:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lactose levels in foods

I think this list could do with being a little more extensive, such as the one found here: http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/digestive-health/nutrition/lactosecontent.pdf Perhaps not all of them (does anybody really need to know the lactose content of 1/2 a cup of orange sherbert?). Also, perhaps it would be a good idea to do a little maths and use the same weight of each foodstuff for comparison (say per 100g). Anyway, I'm much too tired to do anything about it right now, but I'll check back in a few days. Lewyblue 03:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the opposite, lactose levels in any given general product vary according to brands, processing method and national health standards, and is therefore mostly unreliable. There are hundreds of brands of yogurt in the world and they all have VERY different levels of lactose in them.--Tallard 02:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Informal assessment

Rcej, I am not arguing that Wikipedia should not give lay medical advice. Which is why I rewrote the paragraph to take any medical presumption out of it. Now it's strictly a food tolerance paragraph. But the fact is most doctors do not bother performing the above cited diagnostic tests on regular patients, they just say live with it or take supplements, because lactose intolerance is not considered a medical disease. So as long as this paragraph remains in the food realm there is not reproachable. Furthermore, this section used to be 4 paragraphs long. I perceive your Wikipedia philosophy may slant a little toward deletionist, but in this case I believe going from 4 paragraphs to 2 lines is perfectly suitable for the article--Tallard 01:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Tallard, with sincere and mutual respect, I realize we're disagreeing on semantic article content... to a point. But looking at this article from the viewpoint of it being in an encyclopedia, this section reads acutely out of place. That's why I'm deleting it; to improve, not merely delete. But, if I may say, your defense of the section leans slightly subjective. Rcej 02:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The fact is the three above mentioned diagnostic tools are not used on common patients, what is common is a simple informal assessment. So your insistence on deleting this approach demonstrates POV on your part, because you're stating only partial information, whereas showing the entire picture would be the «objective treatment» or NPOV--Tallard 23:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Why haven't you pointed to a valid, professional opinion on your assertion that the informal assessment is common? Your insistence on keeping an advisory section that seemingly cannot be easily verified demonstrates POV as well. We can't all know that the entire picture includes "drink this, and if you don't puke...". See what I mean? As is, that section is either too silly or possibly irresponsible to be included in an encyclopedia. Point us to something... then put it back. Rcej 01:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'Curing' lactose intolerance

This is, of course, anecdotal...I have apparently been cured of lactose intolerance though not in a great way. Last year I underwent a partial thyroidectomy (to remove a lump that suddenly appeared). During the course of healing I developed a severe MRSA infection which required strong antibiotics to treat. Those antibiotics killed a large amount of my normal intestinal bacteria and allowed c. difficile to proliferate, which was preventing me from properly digesting food. After a round of strong antibiotics to treat that, I have slowly worked my way up to apparently digesting dairy products which would previously cause me considerable discomfort without issue. Today I had pizza for lunch and lasagna for dinner (yeah, unhealthy, but it proves my point).

Of course this is not a routine I would suggest to anyone. I only bring this up to see if anyone knows of similar events or studies of events that have caused a similar result in other people. If so, those studies (full cited) could perhaps be used here. --Kickstart70-T-C 02:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear on your wording, you were NOT CURED of lactose intolerance, you are still not producing lactase. The only difference is your bacterial profile is different. Also, you are NOT digesting the lactose, as you have no lactase, you are simply not experiencing the symptoms of lactase defficiency. Unless of course you were not lactose intolerant to begin with but only thought you were due to your chronic digestive problems...--Tallard 06:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Please don't edit my words to fit your viewpoint. And please provide medical details with citations on the difference between 'curing' and 'not experiencing any symptoms' in regard to lactose intolerance, if you are going to be so outraged by the concept. I was not claiming to have a 'cure', I was only relating my (anecdotal and clearly stated as such) case as an avenue for finding studies that may help in improving the article. Further, WP:CIVIL. --Kickstart70-T-C 23:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
You are not cured, just because your body is cheating the symtoms!!! Symptoms of any situation are variable, using the word cure is to lie to readers, and lead readers down false roads. Along the same lines, when you have a cold, you can cheat the symptoms but but you wouldn't go around saying your cold was cured now would you? You therefore would do a service to the wiki community by correcting your own words.--Tallard 19:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Discussion != article. I brought this up on the discussion page, NOT in the article. Further, lactose intolerance is not caused by a virus, so your analogy is intrinsically flawed. You haven't answered my question, and continue to act as if I've done something wrong. As well, you started out by editing my words on a discussion page, which is heavily frowned upon, and haven't acknowledged that rude behaviour. Why you assume anyone, including me, should pay any attention to your viewpoint at this stage is beyond me. --Kickstart70-T-C 20:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Striking out is a very useful feature when words are incorrect. Your words were not removed, that would have been rude.--Tallard 05:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Making it absolutely clear for you --Kickstart70-T-C 06:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
You obviously missed this nice line in your own referenced page: Deleting material not relevant to improving the article (per the above subsection #How to use article talk pages). So in fact I should have deleted your entire post, but no, I'm a nice person, and I chose to compromise and only scratch 2 words, to alleviate your frustration. There is no "curing" of lactose intolerance, all references are clear on that, so your anecdote does not belong on this talk page, as per Wikipedia guidelines.--Tallard 09:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I do not know how this could be clearer for you: "Do not strikeout the comments of other editors without their permission.". In any case, if you really think my comment shouldn't have been here, then complain to an admin who can really do something about it. As it is, you are violating the discussion guidelines and WP:CIVIL and are now just being a jerk for the sake of being a jerk. --Kickstart70-T-C 13:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I repeat, I was clement to you...
Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments
Deleting material not relevant to improving the article (per the above subsection #How to use article talk pages) and may I please request that you not call people names, I have been civil to you all along.--Tallard 17:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smaller font size for reference list

I removed it because it's monster square writing, like for old people with reading difficulty. There is absolutely no need in ANY article to change the standard font size of the reference section. It's the same on all articles. Monster print as you've changed it to is not appropriate.--Tallard 03:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


those 2 references are not listed anywhere in the article, they are therefore NOT references. I placed them in source, as a temporary measure, if anyone cares to correctly relate them to an item in the article. But in fact, I now realise I should have simply deleted them.--Tallard 05:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Primary Lactose Intolerance

Tallard, in the article, the syntax "..where mother's milk is the only commonly available source of milk.." is just a poorly written, horridly silly way to try to explain the direct meaning. There is no dairy consumption after weaning, because in many of those Asian and African cultures... there is no dairy industry, nor commercial dairy consumption occuring period. The exclusive availabilty of mother's milk is not the issue; but, the fact that beyond infancy, there will be no dairy consumption is the issue. And also, these are not the reasons children become weaned... weaning always occurs, regardless of culture. I know you did not mean it to read that way, but often, things need to be written in reasonable, even obvious terms.-- Rcej 01:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] "Normal"

I just read the article for the first time and really appreciated it, especially since I had no clue how lactase "non-persistence" worked before now. I am a bit baffled by the 2nd sentence, though: "from a world view, lactose intolerance can be regarded as 'normal' for humans whereas lactose tolerance may be considered a form of neoteny." Is it an encyclopedia's job to say what's normal and what's abnormal? And are only people over 4 years old humans? Or are children under 4 years old also humans? Just seems a bit off. TrickyApron (talk) 08:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

For the above reasons I removed most of the 2nd sentence. Anyone have a better way to word it? --TrickyApron (talk) 23:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lead section

The lead section needs work per WP:LEAD. In general, it should be a summary of the article. As is, it doesn't summarize the article well, while introducing a great deal of material about the three major types of lactose intolerance that is not expanded upon in the rest of the article as one would expect. I think the discussion on the three types should be moved to within the article proper, near the beginning of course, and the lead section then expanded and modified to be more of a summary. --Ronz (talk) 03:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I rewrote the first two sentences and removed the rest of the material Ronz mentioned. I've included it below for reference; I couldn't find any natural place to insert it that wouldn't require expansion and/or rewriting. --TrickyApron (talk) 23:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

There are three major types of lactose intolerance[1]:

  1. Primary lactose intolerance. Environmentally induced when weaning a child in non dairy consuming societies[2]. This includes many Asian and African cultures, where industrialized and commercial dairy is uncommon.
  2. Secondary lactose intolerance. Environmentally induced, resulting from certain gastrointestinal diseases, including exposure to intestinal parasites such as giardia[3][4]. In such cases the production of lactase may be permanently disrupted.[6] + (Wiser 2000, Pennardt 2006). A very common cause of temporary lactose intolerance is gastroenteritis, particularly when the gastroenteritis is caused by rotavirus.
  3. Congenital lactase deficiency. A genetic disorder which prevents enzymatic production of lactase. Present at birth, and diagnosed in early infancy. --TrickyApron (talk) 23:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
As per WP:MEDMOS, section should be at top under heading of "Classification" and I've so inserted it there. Needed at that place rather than later as next sections discuss population incidences which is reflection on variously rates of primary lactose intollerance, whereas the secondary is specific to individuals being infected by specific infections. David Ruben Talk 01:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. --TrickyApron (talk) 07:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Consistency and a Question

According to section 6.2 of this article, entitled Lactose Supplementation, "Lactase enzymes similar to the those produced in the small intestines of humans are produced industrially by fungi of the genus aspergillus. The enzyme, β-galactosidase, is available in tablet form in a variety of doses, in many countries without a prescription. It functions well only in high-acid environments, such as that found in the human gut due to the addition of gastric juices from the stomach."

But accoriding to a different article called "Beta-galactosidase" (I'd add the link, but I don't know how), "Lactase is often confused as an alternate name for β-galactosidase, but it is actually simply a sub-class of β-galactosidase." So isn't this article just saying that the enzyme Lactase is available in pill form? And if that's the case, how does the enzyme, which has an optimum Ph level of 6.5, survive the low 1-2 Ph of stomach acid without being denatured? I actually came to this article looking for the answer to that question: How do chewable Lactase tablets make it to the intestines without being denatured? But even if no one has the answer to that specific question, this section is still somewhat unclear.80.84.191.33 (talk) 21:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)