• We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information

Table 16Association between lactose intake and metabolism and BMC

Study Difference in Daily Ca++ Intake in Comparison GroupsComparisonOutcomeEstimateMean Difference (95% CI)
Low lactose diets
Vatanparast, 2005160
Country: Canada
Children and adolescents Ca++ intake difference in comparison groups: NR/NR
Calcium intake by mg/d, increment 1mg/dayTotal-body BMC in boysAdjusted for height, body mass, physical activity, intake of calcium, and intake of vegetables and fruit 0.02 (0.00; 0.03)
Calcium intake by mg/d, increment 1mg/dayTotal-body BMC in girlsNS
Parsons, 199795
Country: The Netherlands
Adolescents Ca++ intake difference in comparison groups: −488/Y
Vegan type diet vs. regular diet in girlsBMC, total bodyAdjusted for bone area, weight, height, percent body lean, age, and puberty −2.54 (−4.58; −0.50)
Vegan type diet vs. regular diet in boysBMC, Total body −3.42 (−5.58; −1.26)
BMC, Spine L1–L4 −8.53 (−12.98; −4.08)
BMC, Femoral neck −8.00 (−13.45; −2.55)
BMC, Trochanter−3.54 (−9.69; 2.61)
BMC, Radius 33% −6.79 (−10.24; −3.34)
Vegan type diet vs. regular diet in girlsBMC, Spine L1–L4 −4.97 (−9.28; −0.66)
BMC, Femoral neck −8.15 (−12.80; −3.50)
BMC, Trochanter −5.84 (−10.62; −1.06)
BMC, Radius 33% −5.55 (−8.76; −2.34)
Rockell, 200597
Country: New Zealand
Prepubertal children with a history of long-term milk avoidance Ca++ intake difference in comparison groups: 182/Y
Milk avoiders, at 2 years of followup vs. baselineTotal body BMC (g)Crude 235.00 (216.00; 273.00)
Baseline vs. reference populationTotal body BMC (kg) −0.44 (−0.76; −0.12)
At 2 years of followup vs. reference populationTotal body BMC (kg)Age adjusted−0.19 (−0.50; 0.12)
Baseline vs. reference populationUD radius BMCCrude −0.30 (−0.57; −0.03)
33% radius BMC−0.27 (−0.61; 0.07)
Lumbar spine (L2–4) BMC−0.16 (−0.43; 0.11)
Femoral neck BMC −0.59 (−1.04; −0.14)
Hip trochanter BMC−0.68 (−1.43; 0.07)
At 2 years of followup vs. reference populationUD radius BMCAge adjusted −0.31 (−0.58; −0.04)
33% radius BMC−0.05 (−0.34; 0.24)
Lumbar spine (L2–4) BMC0.02 (−0.25; 0.29)
Femoral neck BMC0.08 (−0.22; 0.38)
Hip trochanter BMC 0.58 (0.28; 0.88)
Black, 200276
Country: New Zealand
Prepubertal children with a history of long-term milk avoidance Ca++ intake difference in comparison groups: NR/NR
Age adjusted z scores in milk avoiders vs. reference healthy childrenTotal-body BMC (g)Age adjusted−0.45 (−0.90; 0.00)
Du, 200296
Country: China
Adolescent Girls Ca++ intake difference in comparison groups: NR/NR
Increase in milk intake by 1 g/dayBMC at distal one-third ulnaAdjusted for physical activity, body weight, age, and socio-economic status regression coefficient 0.0002 (0.0001; 0.0003)
BMC at distal one-third radius 0.0003 (0.0002; 0.0004)
BMC at distal one-tenth ulna 0.0003 (0.0002; 0.0004)
BMC at distal one-tenth radius 0.0004 (0.0002; 0.0006)
No milk consumers vs. Low milk group (<22±18 g/day)BMC (g/cm); distal one- third radiusCrude−0.03 (−0.06; 0.00)
BMC (g/cm); distal one- third ulna0.00 (−0.03; 0.02)
BMC (g/cm); distal one- tenth radius −0.07 (−0.12; −0.02)
BMC (g/cm); distal one- tenth ulna−0.03 (−0.05; 0.00)
No milk consumers vs. High milk group (>128±165 g/day)BMC (g/cm); distal one- third radiusCrude−0.02 (−0.05; 0.01)
BMC (g/cm); distal one- third ulna−0.01 (−0.03; 0.02)
BMC (g/cm); distal one- tenth radius−0.04 (−0.08; 0.00)
BMC (g/cm); distal one- tenth ulna−0.02 (−0.05; 0.00)
Low milk group (<22±18 g/day) vs. High milk group (>128±165 g/day)BMC (g/cm); distal one- third radiusCrude0.00 (−0.03; 0.04)
BMC (g/cm); distal one- third ulna0.00 (−0.03; 0.02)
BMC (g/cm); distal one- tenth radius0.02 (−0.03; 0.08)
BMC (g/cm); distal one- tenth ulna0.00 (−0.03; 0.03)
Genetic polymorphism
Enattah, 200457
Country: Finland
Young men Ca++ intake difference in comparison groups: NR/NR
T/T vs. C/CLumbar spine BMC (g)Crude2.10 (−44.69; 48.89)
Femoral neck BMC (g)0.00 (−3.75; 3.75)
Trochanter BMC (g)0.10 (−15.18; 15.38)
Total hip BMC (g)2.40 (−25.98; 30.78)
C/T vs. C/CLumbar spine BMC (g)Crude1.20 (−42.87; 45.27)
Femoral neck BMC (g)−0.20 (−4.26; 3.86)
Trochanter BMC (g)−0.10 (−14.97; 14.77)
Total hip BMC (g)0.50 (−28.80;2 9.80)
T/T vs. C/TLumbar spine BMC (g)Crude0.90 (−40.78; 42.58)
Femoral neck BMC (g)0.20 (−4.05; 4.45)
Trochanter BMC (g)0.20 (−14.23; 14.63)
Total hip BMC (g)1.90 (−23.08; 26.88)
Lactose intolerance
Stallings, 199498
Country: USA
Prepubertal children Ca++ intake difference in comparison groups: −383/Y
Lactose intolerance vs. noneBMC, g/cm adjusted for body size in LI subjectsCrude regression coefficient 0.00006 (0.00001; 0.00011)
Lactose intolerance vs. noneBMC, g/cmCrude−0.01 (−0.08; 0.05)
Di Stefano, 20025
Country: Italy
Adults Ca++ intake difference in comparison groups: −240/Y
Lactose intolerance vs. noneBMC (g): Lumbar spineCrude −2.80 (−5.42; −0.18)
Lactose intolerance vs. noneBMC (g): Femoral neck −1.60 (−2.11; −1.09)
Matlik, 200799
Country: USA
10- to 13-Year-Old Female Adolescents Ca++ intake difference in comparison groups: 168/Y
Perceived Lactose intolerance vs. noneTotal body BMC, gAdjusted for location (California or Indiana), race/ethnic group (Asian, Hispanic, or non-Hispanic white), and age (years), BMI and Tanner score−69.65 (−147.74; 8.45)
Spine (L2–L4) BMC, g −2.52 (−4.39; −0.64)
Total hip BMC, g−0.95 (−2.05; 0.15)
Femoral neck BMC, g−0.14 (−0.30; 0.02)
Total body BMC, gCrude−95.00 (−214.68; 24.68)
Spine (L2–L4) BMC, g −3.15 (−5.39; −0.91)
Total hip BMC, g−1.17 (−2.77; 0.43)
Femoral neck BMC, g−0.17 (−0.39; 0.05)
Lactose malabsorption
Di Stefano, 20025
Country: Italy
Adult Ca++ intake difference in comparison groups: −54/Y
Lactose malabsorption vs. noneBMC (g): Lumbar spineCrude−0.50 (−2.11; 1.11)
BMC (g): Femoral neck0.00 (−0.39; 0.39)
Matlik, 200799
Country: USA
10- to 13-year-old female adolescent Ca++ intake difference in comparison groups: 9/N
Lactose malabsorption vs. noneTotal body BMC, g,adjusted for location, race/ethnic group, and age. Diet models were also adjusted for weight,, BMI and Tanner score 30.88 (45.07; 106.82)
Spine (L2–L4) BMC, g−0.12 (−1.94; 1.71)
Total hip BMC, g 0.21 (0.83; 1.26)
Femoral neck BMC, g 0.08 (0.08; 0.23)
Total body BMC, gCrude−98.00 (−209.82; 13.82)
Spine (L2–L4) BMC, g−0.79 (−2.94; 1.36)
Total hip BMC, g−0.95 (−2.37; 0.47)
Femoral neck BMC, g−0.18 (−0.38; 0.02)
Goulding, 199971
Country: New Zealand
Middle age and older women Ca++ intake difference in comparison groups: NR/NR
Malabsorbers vs. absorbers at baselineBMC, g/cm2 ultradistal radiusAdjusted for age, body weight, menopausal status, calcium intake regression coefficient0.02 (−0.04; 0.00)
BMC, g/cm2 33% radius0.01 (−0.04; 0.02)
BMC, g/cm2, L2–4−0.04 (−0.05; 0.12)
BMC, g/cm2, neck of femur0.02 (−0.08; 0.04)
BMC, g/cm2, trochanter0.01(−0.08;0.06)
BMC, g/cm20.00 (−0.05; 0.04)
Total body mineral content (g)−59.60 (−67.50; 186.70)
Malabsorbers vs. absorbers at baseline at 12 months of followupBMC, g/cm2 ultradistal radius0.00230 (−0.00700; 0.00200)
BMC, g/cm2 33% radius0.00180 (−0.00900; 0.00500)
BMC, g/cm2, L2–40.00540 (−0.02300; 0.01300)
BMC, g/cm2, neck of femur−0.00150 (−0.01400; 0.01700)
BMC, g/cm2, trochanter−0.00320 (−0.01900; 0.02600)
BMC, g/cm20.00040 (−0.01000; 0.00900)

Bold – statistically significant

From: 3, Results

Cover of Lactose Intolerance and Health
Lactose Intolerance and Health.
Evidence Reports/Technology Assessments, No. 192.
Wilt TJ, Shaukat A, Shamliyan T, et al.

PubMed Health. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.