In the new Frankenstein of Guillermo del Toro there is a silent detail that is repeated: Victor Frankenstein—played by Oscar Isaac—drinks milk. As a child, as an adult, at family dinners, even at a solemn moment when you are presented with a bottle of milk as if it were wine. In Gothic language, this gesture symbolizes innocence, purity, duality.
But beyond the metaphor, something draws attention: that silent debate that touches our daily lives. Victor drinks milk without hesitation. Us, not so much. Whole? Semi? Skimmed? Because, unlike in movies, in the real world not even science is clear about what milk we should be drinking. Welcome to the dairy maze.
An everyday food in an impossible debate. The debate is not trivial. We are talking about a food that is consumed daily, that is part of official recommendations, that is linked to cardiovascular risk and that even enters school programs. If one reviews the most cited studies, the sensation is peculiar: it is as if science described three parallel realities about the same food.
In a recent large Norwegian study, those who drank the most whole milk had a 7% increased risk of dying from cardiovascular disease. However, another study, published in Science Direct within the CARDIA study, found just the opposite: those who drank more whole milk had a 24% lower risk of arterial calcification, an early marker of coronary heart disease.
Yes, one study says “more risk” and another says “less risk.” It is not a typo.
The confusion continues. A 2016 clinical trial showed that a blood pressure-lowering diet worked just as well using full-fat dairy as it did with low-fat dairy. And studies on weight do not provide clarity either: the 2020 meta-studies, along with previous studies, agree that whole milk does not make you more fattening than skimmed milk, despite having more calories. In fact, the Framingham Heart Study, published in Nature, relates greater consumption of dairy products—including yogurt—with less weight gain and long-term waist.
So what are we left with? The magic—and misleading—word: “neutral.” Into this chaos, Harvard arrives to launch another narrative twist. According to its researchers, dairy products appear to be “neutral” for cardiovascular health. That is, they do not increase the risk of heart attack or stroke, but they do not reduce it either, when compared to the average diet. Now, Harvard adds a key nuance: “neutral” does not mean “healthy.” It only indicates that dairy products are as unhealthy as the rest of the common foods in the Western diet, such as refined cereals, soft drinks or processed meats. If instead of comparing them with these, we compare them with vegetable proteins (nuts, soy, legumes), the balance clearly leans towards the vegetable options, with less cardiovascular risk and lower mortality.
So the scientific picture, for now, is anything but clear.
Why so much contradiction? The mess is not accidental. Science does not contradict itself for the sake of it; It does this because the studies measure different things and compare foods that are not equivalent. For example, both Harvard and The Washington Post explain that many studies that conclude that dairy products are “neutral” compare them with very unhealthy foods: sugary soft drinks, processed meats, products with refined flour… It is easy to “look healthy” when the rival is an industrial sausage. But if the rival is nuts or soybeans, the results change radically.
Another factor is the so-called dairy matrix. Cheese, for example, has saturated fats, yes, but also bacteria, proteins, vitamins and polar lipids that can modify how the body absorbs that fat. Whole milk contains compounds whose function we still don’t fully understand: some studies suggest that they may reduce inflammation or decrease intestinal absorption of cholesterol. This complexity means that the same nutrient—saturated fat—does not behave the same in dairy products as it does in meat.
In addition, the genetic variant must be taken into account. The ability to digest lactose varies depending on the population. In northern Europe only 5% are intolerant; in Asia, up to 95% are. This implies that the same food can have very different digestive, metabolic and inflammatory effects depending on the person.
One last detail of nothing. Most studies are observational, not experimental. That is, they detect associations, not causes. If people who drink skim milk usually do so because they want to control their weight, their level of exercise, their overall diet, or their risk factors also influence the results. And vice versa. Sometimes, more than studying milk, what is studied is the lifestyle of those who drink it.
This battle is the milk. In Spain there is also a small shift taking place. After decades in which skimmed milk was the almost mandatory option for anyone who wanted to “take care of themselves”, whole milk has begun to regain prestige. Nutritionists and popularizers have been pointing out for months something that was previously overlooked: that dairy fat not only provides flavor, but also satiety and fat-soluble vitamins such as A and D, which are lost when the fat is eliminated and then attempted to be reintroduced artificially. As nutritionists cited by Infosalus explain, “whole milk retains all its properties,” while skimmed milk may be more difficult to digest for some people.
At the same time, the skim deflates. One could speak of the “end of calorie fundamentalism”: that stage in which we thought that losing fat was always synonymous with health. Experts now warn that reducing fat does not always compensate if, in return, we lose satiety or end up adding other more caloric or sugary foods to “fill” hunger.
Not everything comes from the cow. Meanwhile, plant-based drinks continue their rise, but with important nuances. Mayo Clinic reminds that most have less protein, may include added sugars and, unless they are fortified, do not match the calcium naturally present in cow’s milk. Soy is the only one that comes close nutritionally, but even so, calcium absorption is lower due to the presence of phytates.
Taken together, all sources agree on something that a few years ago would have sounded almost sacrilegious: milk is not essential. Its calcium and proteins can be obtained from fish such as sardines, nuts such as almonds, green leafy vegetables or even fortified tofu. The idea that “to be healthy you have to drink milk” is part of our food culture, not a scientific law written in stone.
Semi-skimmed, that refuge when science is not clear. After reviewing dozens of studies, articles and experts, the conclusion is the one you least expected until reading here: science still does not know precisely which milk is best for everyone. The whole thing seems less dangerous than we thought. Skimming is not as beneficial as we were told. The genetic explanation means that there are no universal truths. Diet comparisons change depending on the rival chosen. And the dairy matrix turns dairy into a nutritional puzzle.
Maybe that’s why we all end up buying semi-skimmed. It is not the most nutritious, nor the lightest, nor the most favored by scientific evidence, but it is the one that gives us the feeling of not making too many mistakes. The middle ground in a world where science is still trying to figure out what the hell happens inside a glass of milk. In an era that demands certainty in everything, milk refuses to give it. And perhaps therein lies the true lesson: there is no one brick that fits everyone. Just one that fits you. Meanwhile, semi-skimmed will continue to reign. Not because it is the best, but because, in this debate, it is the only one that does not force you to have breakfast reading meta-analysis.
Imagen | FreePik
WorldOfSoftware | The fever of healthy shots to feel better: now it’s the beet’s turn
