Lactose Intolerance: the new housewife's syndrome?

Back in the day, by which I mean about thirty years ago, there seemed to be an epidemic of what was called "housewife's syndrome". The term was coined, with some disdain I think, to describe an indefinable, ambiguous illness that seemed to afflict women and the main symptom was tiredness. For all I know, it was a forerunner of chronic fatigue syndrome. Time passed and the diagnosis passed out of fashion. But today there seems to be another affliction to take its place: lactose intolerance. This condition, of course, has nothing in common with housewife's syndrome other than it seems to have become trendy. People are quick to self-diagnose and it's often given as an excuse for rejecting certain foods...especially if they have any dairy in them.

I gave a presentation last night and one of the attendees claimed that she couldn't eat butter because she was lactose intolerant. Whoa, Nellie! Butter doesn't have any lactose. Neither do most hard cheeses; if they do contain lactose it's in minuscule amounts. In addition, lactose intolerant folks can eat yogurt since the friendly bacteria do a nice job of breaking down the lactose. And, of course, there are the lactase pills that can be taken before ingesting a product with lactose. There are also lactose-free milks that can be bought. All in all, lactose intolerance doesn't mean having to say "no" to dairy.

But, back to the issue of self-diagnosis and believing in a condition that while for some is a real problem, for others exists only in their minds. Please note my avoidance of the phrase "it's all in their head". This term, although manifestly accurate in some cases, has been dismissed as pejorative by most. But I digress. A study was recently published that showed that the actual prevalence of lactose maldigestion (another term for lactose intolerance) was significantly lower than previously thought. Prior to this study the incidence of lactose intolerance was thought to be 80 percent among African-Americans; 50 percent among Mexican-Americans; 15 percent among those of European descent. The newest estimates show the incidence to be: 19.5 percent for African-Americans; 10.05 percent for Hispanics; and 7.72 percent for those of European extraction. Big, big difference.

A lot of the misinformation came from animal rights/vegan groups who were fond of saying that roughly 80 percent of the world's population suffered from lactose intolerance so, therefore, nobody should consume dairy products. And, again, if someone felt uncomfortable after eating a food that contained any dairy at all, they sometimes jumped to the conclusion that they were lactase deficient. Notice that the o in lactose indicates the milk sugar; the a in lactase indicates the enzyme responsible for digesting the lactose.

The downside of the actual malady is the need for some exquisitely sensitive individuals to avoid the majority of milk products; the downside for those who mistakenly believe that they indeed have lactose intolerance when they actually don't, or have it to a degree that is entirely manageable, is that they will deprive themselves of dairy's unique package of essential nutrients. If you suspect that you might be lactose intolerant then by all means have yourself tested. It should be borne in mind, however, that the standard test for lactose intolerance involves drinking a solution with 50 grams of lactose (the equivalent of a litre of milk) in one sitting, after which blood glucose levels are measured. Many people will react to that high a dose with some discomfort. A better test is the breath hydrogen test in which hydrogen in the breath is measured after a known quantity of lactose has been ingested.

An important fact to remember is that no human being produces the enzyme (alpha-galactosidase) needed to break down certain carbohydrates in beans, yet people eat them, sing silly songs about the effects, and get on with things. Nobody advocates a world-wide society aimed at getting rid of beans; let's have the same tolerance for lactose.