Why milk, cheese (and even a smidgen of butter) is good for your health
Queue for a coffee in your local café and you'll hear a dizzying array of orders – oat flat whites, almond macchiatos, soya lattes. Increasingly rarely will anyone order a drink made with dairy, which has fallen so far out of fashion that in some circles it's become a dirty word.
Since the 1970s, our consumption of cow's milk has halved – from an average of 140 litres per person per year to 70. Today, just under 35 per cent of British households buy plant-based alternatives, according to data firm Kantar, with annual sales of oat milk alone topping £275 million – up from £155 million five years ago.
But while vegan alternatives are generally considered better for the environment than cow's milk, is giving up dairy good for our health? The latest research suggests not. A new study from the University of Reading has found that including dairy in your diet may help control blood sugar levels more effectively than a plant-only diet – and could help prevent diabetes.
Participants were either vegetarians who included dairy in their diets, or vegans. Blood tests showed the dairy group had higher levels of acetyl carnitine – a compound that helps cells use fat for energy and reduces oxidative stress, the damage that can occur when blood sugar is too high.
And this is far from the only benefit. 'Eating dairy is one of the easiest ways to get enough calcium,' says Dr Emily Leeming, a microbiome scientist at King's College London, dietitian and author of Genius Gut.
Calcium is vital for bone health, muscle, nerve and heart function – and it's also strongly linked to protection against bowel cancer. The largest study to date on diet and bowel cancer found that people who ate more dairy tended to have a lower risk of developing the disease.
'An extra 300mg of calcium – found in a typical glass of milk – is associated with a 17 per cent lower risk of bowel cancer,' says Dr Leeming.
Alongside calcium, 'dairy contains a high level of protein and other important nutrients including vitamin B12, iodine, phosphorus, potassium and riboflavin,' says Laura Southern, founder of London Food Therapy.
So what type of dairy should we be going for – and how much?
Skip to:
Milk
Cheese
Yogurt
Butter
Milk can lower your risk of heart disease
Many adults today claim to be lactose intolerant – a condition in which the body doesn't produce enough of the enzyme lactase to break down the sugar in cow's milk. It's believed to affect around 15–20 per cent of the population. Cow's milk protein allergy is common in babies – affecting around seven per cent of those under one – but most outgrow it, and in adults it's very rare.
For most people, then, choosing a plant-based alternative is a lifestyle decision – but one that could have unintended health consequences. Our declining intake of cow's milk has led to a drop in iodine consumption – a trace mineral that's crucial for thyroid function. A 200ml glass of milk provides around 70mcg of iodine, half the adult recommended daily intake of 140mcg.
'Iodine is quite difficult to find in our diets, but it goes into cattle feed – which means it's in milk,' says Southern. 'We need iodine for our thyroid hormones. Thyroid disorders can cause low energy levels, poor metabolism, fertility problems and issues with foetal development during pregnancy.'
Contrary to what many believe, milk isn't likely to make you gain weight or raise your cholesterol. Research from the University of Reading found that milk drinkers had lower cholesterol levels – and a 14 per cent lower risk of coronary heart disease.
And semi-skimmed or skimmed options may not be the healthier choice. A 2024 study in the US revealed that drinking whole milk was associated with lower weight, BMI and obesity prevalence.
Some plant-based drinks are fortified with calcium, vitamin B12 and iodine – others are not. Organic versions, which are the least processed, cannot legally be fortified. And while some fortified drinks contain added calcium, not all forms are equally well absorbed. The calcium in cow's milk is naturally occurring – and more readily used by the body.
'Cow's milk is a really good package of nutrients in an unprocessed bundle,' says Southern.
Eat cheese to ward off dementia
Cheese has long been vilified for its high levels of saturated fat and salt – but recent research suggests it offers far greater health benefits than previously assumed.
In 2023, a review of dozens of studies by scientists in China and at Harvard University found that eating cheese – around 40g per day – was linked to a lower risk of heart disease, stroke and dementia.
A possible explanation for its cardiovascular benefits may lie in its fermentation process, says Southern. 'The beneficial microbes break down the lactose – or milk sugar – and the proteins in cheese. Those are the elements that can have an inflammatory effect in the body,' she explains. 'What's left are the health-promoting components.'
Bacteria in many cheeses – including Parmesan and cheddar – break down milk proteins into compounds similar to those found in blood pressure drugs known as ACE (angiotensin-converting-enzyme) inhibitors, potentially helping to prevent hypertension.
Fermentation also produces vitamin K, which has been shown to slow the build-up of calcium deposits in the arteries and valves of the heart. Camembert and Edam contain the highest levels.
A 2023 study of older adults in Japan found that eating cheese was associated with better cognitive function and lower rates of dementia. The cheese-eating group also had slightly lower BMIs and blood pressure – and walked faster.
Hard cheeses are particularly rich in calcium. Parmesan contains 19 per cent of the recommended daily amount in just one 30g serving. Official guidance recommends no more than 30g of cheese a day.
'We don't want to eat too much because of its fat content, but I advise clients to measure two fingers' worth of hard cheese, chop it up and sprinkle it into a salad,' says Southern. 'That way you're getting the benefits, plus flavour, protein and satiety.'
Vegan alternatives are another matter. 'They're mostly salt and fat and are very highly processed,' says Southern. 'Most varieties aren't health-enhancing – and cheese is notoriously difficult to replicate.'
The benefits of the good bacteria in 'live' yoghurt for the gut microbiome are well established – making a daily portion one of the healthiest dairy choices around. 'I often advise clients to start their day with a couple of tablespoons of fermented or Greek yoghurt with seeds,' says Southern. 'It's very satiating, provides a high level of protein and helps keep blood sugar steady throughout the morning.'
Several major studies have highlighted further health advantages. The most recent – published in Gut Microbes – showed that long-term consumption of two or more servings of yoghurt per week was linked to lower rates of one type of bowel cancer.
Another study, based on data from 5,000 people, found that eating 40g of yoghurt daily lowered the risk of liver cancer by 5.4 per cent. Research from the Medical Research Council's epidemiology unit at the University of Cambridge also found that people who regularly ate natural, unsweetened yoghurt had a 28 per cent lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes than those who never consumed it.
Still not convinced? A comprehensive 2023 meta-analysis published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, which examined data from almost 900,000 participants, found that higher yogurt intake was significantly associated with a lower risk of death from all causes – and from cardiovascular disease.
Dairy-free alternatives generally contain far less calcium, protein and potassium – although some now include added probiotics to support gut health.
Butter – stick to small amounts
Who doesn't love a slice of hot toast slathered in melting butter? Delicious as it is, butter is high in saturated fat – so 'moderation is key,' says Southern.
One analysis, which included data from more than 600,000 people, found that moderate butter consumption wasn't linked to a higher risk of heart disease – and may even offer slight protection against type 2 diabetes.
But compared to other forms of dairy, its benefits are limited. 'New research has shown that it's not just the nutrients themselves that affect health – it's how they're packaged within a food, something called the food matrix,' says Dr Leeming. She points to a study comparing the matched nutrients in cheese and butter, which found that cheese lowered levels of 'bad' LDL cholesterol – while butter did not. 'It suggests the food matrix plays a role in how our bodies respond,' she says.
A major study published earlier this year, involving more than 200,000 people followed over 30 years, found that those who consumed more plant-based oils – particularly olive, rapeseed and soya – had a 17 per cent lower risk of death than those who regularly ate butter.
'We don't need to be frightened of butter,' says Southern. 'Although plant-based spreads are now largely free from unhealthy trans fats, I'd still choose butter for toast or baking. But for cooking, a good quality oil is much better for us.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
25 minutes ago
- Times
Students ‘will spend 25 years on their mobiles'
Students are set to spend 25 years of their life glued to smartphones, a survey of phone use in education predicts. The average person in school, college or university spends five hours and 30 minutes a day on their mobile — and could clock up 25 years of screen time if their habits don't change. For the 4 per cent of students who spend nine hours or more on the phone every day, that rises to 41 years on the device. The research was conducted over the first five months of this year by Fluid Focus, which aims to help people manage their screen time. Its figures are based on a waking day of 16 hours and 72 years of smartphone use from age 11 to 83.
Telegraph
35 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Assisted dying, abortion, grooming gangs...Britain is morally deformed
I've a friend in a nursing home with very bad cancer. Physically, he feels OK, but there are hints of mental confusion. One afternoon we watched a quiz show on a blank television that wasn't turned on. It was proof, he said, that his mind couldn't be going because he got all the answers right. With the passage of Kim Leadbeater's Bill – save a stay of execution in the Lords – he suddenly looks like a candidate for assisted dying, and yet his suffering strengthens the case against. My friend, at this stage, is miserable less because of the tumour than because he's poor – can't afford a home care – and anxious because he wakes up in a strange place and imagines he's been kidnapped. He tells me he is at the centre of a plot by the state to kill the old by driving them mad. Though I assure him that no government is competent enough to pull such a thing off, I'm beginning to wonder if he has a point. Last week, the Commons voted to decriminalise abortion and legalise state-assisted suicide, the latest twist on 'cradle to grave'. Supporters spoke of humanising the law, of continuing the 'progressive' effort begun in the 1960s when abortion was first permitted. But there's a big contextual difference. Social liberalism in a time of economic growth was about increasing choice; today, in a period of austerity, it suggests narrowing options. Can't afford a baby? Terminate it. Worry you might burden the grandkids? Take a seat in the suicide pod. Of course this isn't what MPs meant by voting this way – but when you cut benefits for the elderly and cap them for children, and then make it easier to destroy yourself or your baby, it's hard not to infer a link. People keep saying to me, with a dash of British humour, that the state intends to kill us all to save money. Let's assume this is wrong. Let's call the speculation tasteless. Nevertheless, we have to account for why so many people feel this way, for the historic loss of trust. This is not some opioid-induced fantasy; human beings respond to cues. The third story in the grimmest week of Starmer's premiership was the publication of the Casey report, which confirmed that Asian men raped girls, and that officials declined to act because it might appear racist. This is mind-blowing stuff and shows how morally deformed our establishment now is. It has no coherent understanding of good and evil – in the difference between innocence and guilt – and in its yearning to look good by its own bizarre standard, it permits evil to flourish. In 2025, a person who prays outside an abortion clinic faces arrest. Meanwhile, a foreign-born, convicted rapist might avoid deportation by invoking their human rights. Religion, in fact, barely featured in the assisted dying debate, except to suggest that opponents might be acting under orders from the Pope. This fantasy pays a backhanded compliment to a faith that has been losing its influence for a very long time. As far back as 1937, Cosmo Gordon Lang, the archbishop of Canterbury, abstained in a Lords vote on divorce because he judged it 'no longer possible to impose the full Christian standard by law on a largely non-Christian population'. Christianity defined the West for so many centuries that its loss is experienced as the death of a fixed order, but we mustn't forget that Jesus was a revolutionary who overturned an even older system of ethics. Pagans, who largely felt life was meant to be enjoyed, thought the martyrdom-chasing Christians were nuts. One can see why. They taught that death is not the end, life is a test, and suffering is an opportunity to imitate the crucifixion. For example: the 7th century saint Cuthbert had a best friend, Herbert, and the two men dreamt of spending eternity together. But Cuthbert was a famously holy man, so would pass through purgatory to Heaven fast, whereas Herbert was just a very good man, so, they feared, might take longer – delaying their reunion. How did God fix the problem? He generously gave Herbert a long, painful illness, so that when he died on the same day as Cuthbert, his soul was so cleansed by suffering that they entered paradise at the same time. Weird, isn't it? Yes, but it also seeded into the West the idea that our life belongs to God, that He made us in his image, and this is a foundation for the principle that you can't take away another's life at will. This gradually flowered into rights for women or slaves, the peace movement and abolition of the death penalty. The problem with a commandment, of course, is that it's inflexible: it extends to unwanted foetuses and relatives in pain. Around the 19th century, we detached God from ethics, getting around the 'Thou Shalt Nots' and opening morality up to negotiation. Add individualism, toss in consumerism, and moral action today is contingent upon personality, economics, circumstance. Back when I was a socialist, before religion came into it, I wasn't comfortable with the idea that one unborn baby gets to live because its parents happen to be married and rich, whereas another is aborted because its mother is single and poor. Humanistic morality seemed surprisingly naive about the reality of the human condition, its appetites and deprivations. Looking at my friend in the nursing home, to what possible extent can one say he has 'agency'? I'm not sure he understands his diagnosis. The notion that he might have a chat with Kim Leadbeater, she with a smile and a clipboard in her hand, and make a rational choice to die next Wednesday afternoon is preposterous. The opportunity for error or manipulation is self-evident, yet many cannot, or will not, see it. For anyone who does choose assisted dying, I hope Christians respond with mercy. We are not in charge of Britain, haven't been for a long time, and I'm not sure I'd want to be. The best options left are to witness and accompany, to do the sometimes depressing, occasionally rewarding work of being with people when they go. I enjoy holding my friend's hand. I'd never have done that when he was healthy.
Telegraph
35 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Martine Croxall has just struck a dazzling blow for common sense
A rebellion can take many forms. Sometimes it's an uprising in the streets. Sometimes it's a ballot-box revolt against the status quo. And sometimes – as BBC newsreader Martine Croxall has brilliantly shown – it's just a droll, one-word aside. Croxall struck a dazzling blow for common sense this week by daring to say the unsayable, by giving voice to a word that's become bizarrely verboten in certain circles. What blasphemous term did she utter? Women. It was during an item on the heatwave. Croxall was talking about new research on the number of heat-related deaths Britain might see as the temperature rises. She read the following from her autocue: 'Malcolm Mistry, who was involved in the research, said the aged, pregnant people…'. Then she stopped. Pregnant people? What in the politically correct hell is this? She mutinied against her teleprompter and told the truth. 'WOMEN', she said, with excellent exasperation. Then she carried on. The elderly, pregnant women and people with pre-existing health conditions 'need to take precautions' in the heat, she said. Post-truth baloney put in its place by a woman who's clearly had enough – you love to see it. 'Pregnant people' is one of those Newspeak phrases that is said to be 'trans-inclusive' but which in truth just erases women. The idea is that if we say 'pregnant people', we won't offend that infinitesimally small chunk of womankind that identifies as male. That 'pregnant people' is offensive to many women – not to mention to science and reason – seems not to matter. Let's be honest – 'pregnant people' is a lunatic term. Every single human being who has ever fallen pregnant has been a woman. They can call themselves Tom, Dick or Harry if they like and ask their woke pals to refer to them as 'he'. But they're women, and it isn't offensive to say so. Other 'trans-inclusive' terms include 'chest-feeding' (what we used to call breastfeeding) and 'birthing bodies' – or 'WOMEN!', as Croxall might say, with that righteous irritation shared by many of us. The memory-holing of the word 'woman' to appease the trans lobby is an outrage. It adds up to a sexist scrubbing from the public record of half of humankind. This is why Croxall's quiet vexation and gentle eye-roll as she said the W-word has chimed with so many: because we are sick of seeing the rights of women and the very language of womanhood be sacrificed at the altar of a dumb and dangerous fad. 'I have a new favourite BBC presenter', said JK Rowling. Same, Joanne. Croxall's rage against the autocue, her one-woman, one-word insurrection against correct-think, was as refreshing as a breeze in this heatwave. Some are now worried the BBC might haul her in for a telling-off. They wouldn't dare. Millions of decent folk will seethe if the public broadcaster even thinks about rapping a woman's knuckles for telling the truth.
