AJCN Cancer Health Disparities Conference
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ellestad-Sayed, J. J.
Right arrow Articles by Bond, J. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ellestad-Sayed, J. J.
Right arrow Articles by Bond, J. H.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Ellestad-Sayed, J. J.
Right arrow Articles by Bond, J. H.

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol 33, 2198-2201, Copyright © 1980 by The American Society for Clinical Nutrition, Inc

ORIGINAL RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS

Milk intolerance in Manitoba Indian school children

JJ Ellestad-Sayed, MD Levitt and JH Bond

The breath H2 test was used to determine the prevalence of milk intolerance in Indian schoolchildren, 5 to 19 years old. One hundred four children were randomly assigned to one of six groups: 1) reconstituted skimmed milk powder (SMP); 2) SMP and sandwich; 3) SMP and lactase; 4) diluted (1:1) evaporated whole milk (EM); 5) EM and sandwich; and 6) EM and lactase. Samples of expired air were collected 2 hr after ingestion of 245 ml of milk. Five children had H2 levels suggestive of appreciable lactose malabsorption; two had symptoms. The mean H2 excretion levels of the subjects on SMP were significantly higher than those on EM. The group on SMP alone excreted significantly more H2 than any other group except those receiving SMP and a sandwich. The relatively low prevalence of milk intolerance in this populatin group should not preclude continuation and promotion of milk programs in their schools. However, preference should be given to the use of EM rather than SMP. The needs of children who cannot hydrolyze lactose must also be considered in the planning of food supplement programs.




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1980 by The American Society for Nutrition