Might be because of anything to be honest.
“ We conclude that absorption was increased when a 50,000 IU dose of vitamin D was taken with a low-fat meal, compared with a high-fat meal and no meal, but that the greater absorption did not result in higher plasma 25(OH)D levels in the low-fat meal group.”
Or this meta-regression of 43 studies: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24993750/
"`for any choice of (∀) nutrient, pasteurization kills nutrient` evaluates to false"
Rather than
"`any nutrient (∃), pasteurization kills nutrient` evaluates to false" - which is what you seem to be responding to.
Hartman, A. M., and L. P. Dryden. 1974. Vitamins in milk and milk products. Pages 325–401 in Fundamentals of Dairy Chemistry. 2nd ed. B. H. Webb, A. H. Johnson, and J. A. Alford, ed. AVI/ Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY.
Different cooking methods for other foods can alter the D content but not drastically it seems. (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29548435/)
"Nutrients" are typically defined as proteins, carbohydrates, lipids (fats), vitamins, and minerals.
Vitamin C is not very heat-stable, so you generally need to get that from raw fruits and vegetables (unless the food has been supplemented with it after cooking).
Vitamin D, by contrast, is pretty heat-stable.
Some proteins are rendered much more digestible by heat, so cooking actually improves the nutritional value of the food, in some cases by a great deal.
Lipids aren't generally affected much, though again some are more heat-stable than others. This is why some fats and oils are a better choice for deep-frying.
Carbohydrates are generally rendered more digestible by cooking, if anything (as long as they don't get so hot they start burning).
Minerals are mostly unaffected by heat. They can leach into the cooking water, so you'll lose some minerals if the cooking water is discarded. If it's something like soup, where the liquid is consumed, there's little or no impact.
There are even some commonly-consumed foods that are actually toxic unless they are cooked or otherwise processed. Cassava and some types of beans fall into this category.
I don't want to make a blanket statement, but I'd reckon that overall cooking helps more than it harms. Note that cooking is nearly universal across human cultures. Some cultures eat a lot more raw foods than others, true, but even the most raw-loving groups generally have some foods they cook (or otherwise process to break down, for instance, by fermentation).
>If you can tolerate lactose, milk is a nice pathway for it.
Smoking cigarettes gets you oxygen.... Just take a D supplement and avoid the saturated fat, hormones, pus, and sugar found im cow's milk. Cow's milk is also implicated in type 1 diabetes and Parkinson's disease.
"A large observational cohort study[1] in Sweden found that women consuming more than 3 glasses of milk a day had almost twice the mortality over 20 years compared to those women consuming less than one glass a day. In addition, the high milk-drinkers did not have improved bone health. In fact, they had more fractures, particularly hip fractures."
Which is a misleadingly confident interpretation of the cited paper which concludes with:
"High milk intake was associated with higher mortality in one cohort of women and in another cohort of men, and with higher fracture incidence in women. Given the observational study designs with the inherent possibility of residual confounding and reverse causation phenomena, a cautious interpretation of the results is recommended."
Beyond correlation =/= causation, note the trepidation in the referenced authors conclusion. Furthermore some of this has been subsequently contradicted by other studies[0] (probably why the Swedish authors had hesitation). [1] provides a more detailed explanation of why the originally referenced study has limited interpretability.
Avoid milk all you want but suggesting "milk is bad for you" is supported by evidence is very misleading, there is conflicting poorly controlled observational evidence on both sides of the discussion. If you like milk, drink it within reason and don't feel bad (for your health).
[0] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-n...
[1] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00198-017-4088-y
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Cornell%E2%80%93...
> The China–Cornell–Oxford Project, short for the "China-Oxford-Cornell Study on Dietary, Lifestyle and Disease Mortality Characteristics in 65 Rural Chinese Counties," was a large observational study conducted throughout the 1980s in rural China, a partnership between Cornell University, the University of Oxford, and the government of China.[1] The study compared the health consequences of diets rich in animal-based foods to diets rich in plant-based foods among people who were genetically similar. In May 1990, The New York Times termed the study "the Grand Prix of epidemiology".
- hormones from the cows and their supplements is in the milk and impacts our hormone system in negative ways
- antibiotics used excessively in cows are in the milk and have negative affects on an individual level and might also contribute to the bacteria antibiotic arms race
- saturated fats are generally bad and should be minimized in the human diet. Milk is full of them and they are direct causes of heart disease and other top killer health issues for people
- sugar argument similar to saturated fats but for diabetes
- milk production is generally inhumane in its treatment of animals and it’s on a pretty big scale
Living a life of generally avoiding processed foods and sugar as well as emphasizing lean meats/protein and vegetables is probably the best thing any of us can do for ourselves whatever that combination may look like for an individual.
Anyone who makes a claim that anything specific is beneficial is almost certainly talking out of their ass or selling a product.
Recall the food pyramid, the greatest corporate pseudoscience scam ever pulled.
There was also a generation that was told "butter is bad for your health".
"- hormones from the cows and their supplements is in the milk and impacts our hormone system in negative ways
- antibiotics used excessively in cows are in the milk and have negative affects on an individual level and might also contribute to the bacteria antibiotic arms race
- saturated fats are generally bad and should be minimized in the human diet. Milk is full of them and they are direct causes of heart disease and other top killer health issues for people"
None of this is supported by evidence, picking the last argument as an example:
Many of the diet studies, as poor as they are, that show beneficial changes due to diet almost always involve fat loss from baseline. Whatever diet can satisfy you and keep the weight down appears to be the local optimum.
Only 40% of consumers in UK [0] know that a cow has to give a birth to a calf to be able to give milk. Male calves are usually immediately killed these days, or sold for meat in a few months (together with 25?% of female calves). In dairy industry calves are removed from their mothers the day they're born (only 27% of consumers know this), in beef industry they're usually kept together.
The saddest story I've seen is a mother cow who gave birth to two calves. Because she was not first-time mother, she prepared. One calf was immediately taken away, the other she managed to hide somewhere in the fields. Of course when the farmer found about it (insufficient milk output), he located the calf and took it away. I can't find it, but here is a similar story. [1]
All dairy cows are forcibly impregnated every year, are spent after 5-6 years to the point where they often can no more walk [2], and instead of a normal life which would be 20-48? years (upper number is the record) they're taken to the slaughterhouse [3].
> humane conditions for the cows
That doesn't exist, not even on small local farms. Humane? It's an oxymoron.
[0] https://plantbasednews.org/culture/ethics/brits-willing-go-v...
[1] https://www.trendcentral.com/mother-cow-hides-calf/
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcN7SGGoCNI - Dairy is scary!
There are farms like this [0] which are certainly humane. And the farms suggested by Dr Temple Grandin also qualify as such, although I'm not aware of any farm actually implementing her methods.
Any kind of slaughter is inhumane when there's no NEED to eat meat. The clean process you may have seen in TV is different from reality (see recent CO2 chambers relevations [0]).
Taking away mother's young and taking milk mother produces for her (him is killed usually immediatelly) is inhumane. [1]
Etc.
I've seen Dr Temple Grandin's "Glass Walls" ... she is not the right person for the job of representing "humane animal treatment." Yes, she says what you want to hear. But not the right person for the animals.
Sure. That's an argument for reformation though.
> Any kind of slaughter is inhumane when there's no NEED to eat meat.
That simply isn't true. Humane simply means inflicting as little suffering as possible. That's it.
> The clean process you may have seen in TV is different from reality
I'm well versed. I've been arguing against veganism for the last few years.
> I've seen Dr Temple Grandin's "Glass Walls" ... she is not the right person for the job of representing "humane animal treatment." Yes, she says what you want to hear. But not the right person for the animals.
She is very well respected in her field and her work is solid. If it makes things better for animals, why resist it?
https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/pesticides/
"While some plant foods may be contaminated, animal food intake is the biggest source of certain pesticide exposure for both adults and children. Pesticides, as well as antibiotics, manure, pus cells, cholesterol, and saturated fat have all been found in milk. Factory farmed fish have higher levels of DDT and other banned pesticides than wild-caught fish, and even fish oil supplements may be contaminated with PCBs and insecticides. Many pesticides take a long time to degrade – the U.S. made arsenic-based pesticides illegal years ago, but they still persist in the soil. Similarly, though DDT was banned in the U.S. for agricultural use in 1972, people may still be exposed to the pesticide through contaminated dairy products and meat."
"Overall, those eating plant-based diets have been found to have a lower levels of pesticides than omnivores. Rinsing produce in a salt water solution may be an effective way to reduce pesticide residues on produce."
Eating red meat has the same problem I suppose.
All those "manly" men behind their BBQs are slowly turning into women.
the level on HN really dropped those last years.
Of course, that's why a human mother's milk is 50-60% saturated fat, right? Saturated fat consumption grams per capita has basically remained steady for the last 120 years or risen slightly, even 20 years before heart disease started to surge right around the time Crisco in the 1920s was introduced into the food supply.
Let's look at the data since 1900. We were told to replace saturated fat with polyunsaturated. Look let's see how that turned out:
https://www.cureamd.org/dr-knobbe-presents-macular-degenerat...
Wow, would you look at that rise in heart disease deaths. Totally running in lock step with saturated fat consumption wasn't it? Whoops, nope!
About 30 years out of date, based on corrupt fraudulent industry "research", completely ignoring recent studies over the past 20 years which have debunked all of that. We need saturated fat. It is essential. Animal fats are loaded with fat soluble vitamins you won't get from industrial seed oil. Vegetable oils are toxic rancid garbage loaded with Omega-6 and 100% deficient in fat soluble nutrients.
Both of those animals have a fermentation based digestive system so they can digest fiber that humans can't.
I'll take the diet and strength of a wolf or bear, thanks.
Some humans still have the ability, but most have lost it. It depends on you microbiome. But we still don't have to consume meat, not in this day and age, and with our supermarkets and online recipes.
> I'll take the diet and strength of a wolf
"Wolves are known to scavenge and consume dead or rotten meat when they come across it. Wolves have a remarkable ability to tolerate and digest decaying flesh. Scavenging on carcasses can be an important source of food for wolves, especially during times when hunting is challenging or prey is scarce."
I'd like to see it ... please find some friends, and without weapons hunt and with your teeth and nails take down an elk or something. Then eat it raw.
And if you're not successfull, find some carcass and enjoy ! Remember to start from the anus, where it's easier to tear.
Cannot edit. I was thinking of insoluble fiber, but cannot find the source.
We can digest soluble fiber. Insoluble fiber we cannot digest, but we need it anyway.
This is a really silly comparison, to compare humans to animals with different genetics, digestion traits and hormones. Male gorillas have MASSIVE amounts of testosterone and minimal myostatin. Their body doesn’t break down muscle. Humans are not like this at all, and if you disagree then please show me a vegetarian body builder, or even vegetarian elite strength athletes.
"Meat is definitely not the secret to bodybuilding,” Bill Pearl later said.
https://www.thebarbell.com/vegan-bodybuilder/#:~:text=Jehina....
https://www.adaptnetwork.com/veganadventurist/8-most-success...
https://ultra-x.co/which-ultra-runners-are-plant-based-or-ve...
And ultra-running is much more cool than body building ;p
But if you insist.
https://html.duckduckgo.com/html?q=vegan%20bodybuilders
https://images.google.com/search?q=vegan+bodybuilder&tbm=isc...
Or what a shark eats?
This argument is absurd.
If you would invalidate a theory because one playlist contains one video by one person of an occupation which has some inconclusive beliefs you may be doing yourself a disservice. Imagine evaluating whether SQLite is good based on a playlist of programmers, one of whom likes Plan 9 microkernel architecture.
Here are results for homeopathy https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=%22homeopathy%22 and fad diets https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=atkins+diet
In this case, the list is low tier papers and journals, or some systemical survey type papers (or low quality first order papers) that still don't reach any conclusions.
Anyway as i said above i have been wanting to go through all of the dozens of references but i have other projects, a long drive to work, and little desire to please others. i have taken the step of standing on others' shoulders and collecting their work. Spoon-feeding it to people who have made up their minds to not consider science has lately sagged on my list of desires.
I’ve pretty much stopped trusting YouTube as a source for scientific evidence.
The motivation for YouTube content creators is views — much like news media, which I trust about as much.
Sure, there are individual creators that are probably fine, but I’d have to already recognize them to trust them. Otherwise it will be hard for me to not have some skepticism for random videos shared by others.
Otherwise, I view YouTube consumption as mostly entertainment, or DIY.
There is also an unfortunatly inverse correlation with subscribers/views/production quality and trustworthiness.
A channel can't succeed unless it optimizes for entertainment value and click bait after all.
So the videos with very high informational value generally have no discernable differences to completely insane conspiracy theory rants... Well, aside from the words they're saying. Okay, that's an exaggeration. The conspiracy theorists will likely have lots of videos, while the person with the good educational content will likely have uploaded <10 videos over several years
Add blood, antibiotics, pesticides/herbicides and endotoxins.
> Cow's milk is also implicated in type 1 diabetes and Parkinson's disease
Yes, and note that cheeses are concentrated milk, so much much worse.
I have problems with normal sugar and fructose but not lactose for some reason. It provides some much needed calories.
I don't see how milk itself is related though.
I take 1000-3000 IUs with dinner at night a couple times a week and sleep like the dead.
There are so many vitamin D pills that are much cheaper than milk, and much better for the environment while having the same function.
It should also be noted that not all dairy production is equal. New Zealand, for example, produces milk with a much lower carbon footprint (https://www.dairynz.co.nz/media/5794851/carbon-footprint-of-...). The formula isn't a secret. Grass fed cows produce less methane and CO2. There is also amazing research on reducing methane production by up to 98% by supplementing the diet of cows with seaweed (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-30/seaweed-a....).
The point being, advocating for abstention is rarely a winning strategy. Instead we should use technology and policy to improve our production methods. Then we can save the environment and continue to enjoy products we consider to be important to our lifestyles. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
The burps are not everything.
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23738600/un-fao-meat-dair...
"many peer-reviewed studies, ... put livestock emissions at between 14.5 percent and 19.6 percent of the world’s total"
"... it doesn’t factor in the significant climate benefits we’d get if we freed up some of the land now dedicated to livestock farming and allowed forests to return, unlocking their potential as “carbon sinks” that absorb and sequester greenhouse gases from the air.
Scientists call this the opportunity cost of animal agriculture’s land use. Because animal farming takes up so much land — nearly 40 percent of the planet’s habitable land area — that opportunity cost is massive ...
"One study found that ending meat and dairy production could cancel out emissions from all other industries combined over the next 30 to 50 years."
> we can save the environment and continue to enjoy products we consider to be important to our lifestyles
No, we can't.
Without Changing Diets, Agriculture Alone Could Produce Enough Emissions to Surpass 1.5°C of Global Warming (2018)
https://www.wri.org/insights/without-changing-diets-agricult...
Now, whether it's carbon tax that'll force e.g. beef to go to its true cost, or climate change, that I don't know.
'Cows Toilet Trained'Industrial agriculture is pretty horrible for the environment and also unsustainable for long term soil management. But it is what we need at the moment to feed the world's population.
Not true. The American food system is incredibly wasteful, and people are getting sick from diseases associated with western diets and overeating, like diabetes and heart disease. People eating traditional eastern diets use less resources and have less diet related illnesses.
Industrial farming is not helpful or needed. The only thing it's good for is putting money in some people's pockets.
- Cramming thousands of animals together with their excrement and humans who work with it creates a convenient pandemic pathogen bioreactor
- Antibiotic resistance by abusing the same substance (just a different supply chain) to make animals grow faster at the expense of antibiotics ceasing to work in people
- Climate change, roughly 10%
- Pollution of air, water, and soil (Ever see what pig farmers do with shit? They liquify it and spray it in the air in shit lakes.)
- Inefficient use of agricultural land and resources that could feed more people and more cheaply
Supplemented for a bit and it was a stark turn around, but I fell out of the habit of doing it and forgot. I drink a half gallon a day easily.
I was surprised.
UV light is also bad for the eyes.
https://www.americanscientist.org/article/sunshine-on-a-clou...
Time of Day (Dawn & Dusk), Exposure Time, Skin and Eye[6] covering (Clothing, Sunscreen[7,8]
[1] Health Effects of Sunlight Exposure : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_sunlight_exp...
[2] Ultraviolet - Human Health-related effects : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet#Human_health-relat...
[3] Latitude : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latitude
[4] Ozone Depletion - Effects : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion#Effects
[5] NASA - Ozone Watch : https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/
[6] Health Effects of Sunlight Exposure - Benefits of Optic Exposure & Effects on Eyes
: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_sunlight_exp...
[7] Sunscreen : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunscreen
[8] Ultraviolet - Sunscreen Safety Debate : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet#Sunscreen_safety_d...
If we can do that, it's confusing how we can't incrementally tackle climate change with selective international agreements that would make the most impact for the socio-economic burden.
Ban doesn't mean they aren't still produced.
https://research.noaa.gov/article/ArtMID/587/ArticleID/2843/...
UV Index - The Sun Safety Scale - Forefront Dermatology (2017)
: https://forefrontdermatology.com/uv-index-sun-safety-scale/
A Guide to the UV Index (PDF) : https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/uviguid...
Ultraviolet Index - External links - 'UV Index Forecast' - 'Real-time Global Ultraviolet Index'
: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_index#External_lin...
The Fitzpatrick Scale (aka) Fitzpatrick Skin Typing test; or Fitzpatrick phototyping scale
: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitzpatrick_scale
Developed in 1975 by American dermatologist Thomas B. Fitzpatrick,
as a way to estimate the response of different types of skin to ultraviolet (UV) light.
Season : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Season
Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD) : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasonal_affective_disorder
Light Therapy : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_therapy
Vitamin D : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_D
Vitamin D Deficiency : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_D_deficiency
Vitamin D Toxicity (aka) Hypervitaminosis D : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypervitaminosis_D
Black-and-white thinking is unsciеntific.
Please provide sources for the evidence you speak of.
> Sunscreen also blocks our skin from making vitamin D, but that’s OK, says the American Academy of Dermatology, which takes a zero-tolerance stance[1] on sun exposure: “You need to protect your skin from the sun every day, even when it’s cloudy,” it advises on its website. Better to slather on sunblock, we’ve all been told, and compensate with vitamin D pills.
-- https://www.outsideonline.com/health/wellness/sunscreen-sun-...
You really shouldn't be so sure of anything you're too lazy to validate yourself. If you're too lazy now, chances are you were too lazy to validate it when you formed the opinion to begin with.
“My thing is true, even though the vast majority of medical professionals and societies disagree with me. And I don’t have to prove it to you, as that is best left as an exercise to the reader” is lazy, and a terrible argument.
Even if you didn’t validate the established guidelines, that doesn’t actually make you lazy; as humans, we cannot possibly hope to empirically validate every single thing we are told, as that would be madness. We often rely on various sources to validate claims for us by running solid, peer-reviewed studies and then we read those, and the vast majority of those studies do not agree with you, though more studies definitely need to be run, particularly with higher SPF sunblocks and mineral sunblocks.
https://www.thechildren.com/health-info/conditions-and-illne...
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30945275/
“ There is little evidence that sunscreen decreases 25(OH)D concentration when used in real-life settings, suggesting that concerns about vitamin D should not negate skin cancer prevention advice. However, there have been no trials of the high-SPF sunscreens that are now widely recommended. What's already known about this topic? Previous experimental studies suggest that sunscreen can block vitamin D production in the skin but use artificially generated ultraviolet radiation with a spectral output unlike that seen in terrestrial sunlight. Nonsystematic reviews of observational studies suggest that use in real life does not cause vitamin D deficiency. What does this study add? This study systematically reviewed all experimental studies, field trials and observational studies for the first time. While the experimental studies support the theoretical risk that sunscreen use may affect vitamin D, the weight of evidence from field trials and observational studies suggests that the risk is low. We highlight the lack of adequate evidence regarding use of the very high sun protection factor sunscreens that are now recommended and widely used.”
Either you think there's a more representative opinion for American dermatologists than the AAD or what seems more likely is that you don't understand the argument that I was supporting.
The evidence I actually wanted proof for was the original commenters’ assertion that sunblock somehow raises cholesterol to unhealthy levels.
The quote you chose from the article (which I did read, for what it’s worth, but was also very light on sources) strongly suggested that sunblock blocks Vitamin D production. The science on that is unclear, but prior research suggests it doesn’t; that said, it warrants more research. I took your choice of that quote specifically to mean that was a claim you were making. If that wasn’t the case and you simply meant to show that the AAD suggested not being in the sun without sunblock, then I agree.
The science on melanoma being very bad is pretty cut and dry, on the other hand.
I never disagreed that American dermatologists tend to follow a “zero tolerance” policy for sun exposure without sunblock. They would very much like you to get sun with sunblock, though.
Apart from that, zero tolerance makes no sense - do they really recommend to wear sunscreen on a cloudy winter day? - but it is somewhat debatable that some people still underestimate the destructive effects of overexposure.
And the elefant in the room is of course your skin type.
Couple of my friends have skin of the fitzpatrick type with reddish hair, light skin and many dark spots.
For them sunscreen is a must when I wouldn't even think about it.
Another interesting tangent: wasn't there a somewhat potent carcinogenic in most sunscreen products?
Only makes the tradeoff even harder.
Edit: found it, I meant this:
https://health.unl.edu/can-sunscreen-cause-cancer-how-avoid-...
Cloudy days still have plenty of UV, depending on where you are (especially near the equator).
Skin type matters, of course, and I would probably be less heavy handed with the recommendation, but the “zero tolerance” issue wasn’t the original point as I understood it.
[edit] Quote from the very article you posted:
“It's important to note that these results are from one study (Valisure), which hasn't yet been validated. Strangely, they also detected benzene in blank test tubes (no sunscreen), leaving some to question if the testing methods contributed to the levels detected.
Toxicologists note that even if you applied the worst sunscreen on the Valisure list to your entire body, you'd be exposed to less than half the amount of benzene you breathe in normal city air in a day. Benzene is also very unstable, so it's unclear how much would be absorbed through the skin.
Don’t let this study convince you to skip sunscreen altogether. Although benzene is a potential risk, it pales in comparison to the known, real risk of UV radiation. Instead, take the time to check that your preferred sunscreen isn’t on the list of contaminated products.”
Agree
>> even when it’s cloudy
Bullshit.
Investigating those issues? Sure. Possibly even believing it’s safer to sleep a baby not on their belly, or that mothers should breastfeed if they can because it is likely to be healthier for the baby? Absolutely.
But almost the entirety of your comment is an appeal to extremes, which is a logical fallacy.
A lot of these studies came out of heart disease investigations within the black community. In the US there is just more compared to West Africa, and after controlling for weight, income, diet, etc., they guessed the difference was likely sunlight and outdoor time.
Followup studies found similar findings, albeit less pronounced with white and middle eastern people.
https://www.grida.no/resources/7130
Note that it’s the same as Spain in the northern-most of the continental US, same as Morocco in the middle, and same as Dubai in the south.
Americans have far more need for sun-screen than Brits do
Anyone not intent on looking old prematurely uses sunscreen.
Here are some maps of the effect of sun exposure on skin cancer as you move north through Europe: https://ecis.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pdf/factsheets/Melanoma_cancer...
https://www.outsideonline.com/health/wellness/sunscreen-sun-...
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/300553551/nz-has-the...
It it very well established in science that light is good for you in some many different ways.
Most people I’ve mentioned this to will say something like “but they’re so fishy” or think that sardines are disgusting car food. At least for canned sardines, what a lot of people don’t know is that there is a wide range of quality in both the packing and actual fish - fishy odors are from a chemical TMAO that is a byproduct of decomposition and anecdotally is more common in the cheap brands. There are brands like Matiz and Nuri that have much higher quality sardines; they’re also physically much larger than what you might think sardines are supposed to look like, with only 3 or so fish per tin. I also like this new brand Minna for a slightly cheaper option.
https://www.consumerlab.com/answers/are-sardines-healthy-and...
>* European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) determined that lactose intolerance can be alleviated,
by ingesting live yogurt cultures (lactobacilli) that are able to digest the lactose in other dairy products.*
Highly recommend supplementing with D. If you can tolerate lactose, milk is a nice pathway for it.