Diet Debate

JC, it looks to me from the article like it is the whey protein that is antiangiogenic. Campbell used casein. He also used rats as his test subjects.

If you go on Ted Talks on the internet, Dr. William Li talks about angiogenesis and antiangiogenic foods. It looks as though he did not use animal studies but showed tumor destruction in a petri dish. He has a list of many foods and beverages that he tested. I did not see milk on the list or specifically whey. He did show pictures of animals with external tumors to which were applied an antiangiogenic paste and the tumors disappeared. I believe the paste was a drug not food.

I have no reason to doubt dr. Campbell's results using casein to induce tumors and removing the casein from the diet to shrink the tumors. One wonders what would be the result of using whey protein. You have to also wonder about the effect of drinking milk without separating out the proteins. One protein causes tumors, the other protein inhibits tumors--do they cancel each other out?

Dr. Campbell himself always says that he doesn't approve of reductionist methods in which you separate out a specific element of the food and come to conclusions about a food based on this, yet he certainly did that using just casein. (However, it might be valid in this case since so many items have just the casein in them--for instance for some reason there is casein in canned tuna.)

The experimenters in the article you cited have done something similar in saying that dairy is healthful to eat because the isolated whey had a positive effect on tumors.

Dolores

Hi Dolores,

Re: I have no reason to doubt Dr. T.C. Campbell's results using casein to induce tumors and removing the casein from the diet to shrink the tumors. One wonders what would be the result of using whey protein.


But I have! That reason is scientific data provided by Campbell's own scientific research published years before but contradicting his popular "China Study" book or its equally dubious spinoffs such the recent "Forks Over Knives" film.


It is not at al about casein being supposedly carcinogenic while whey protective, and it is not about rats being or not being representative to humans. It is not a small mistake of omission - it is a major scientific blunder!


The main point is that Campbell's own earlier published research with his student Appleton ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6131741 ) demonstrates clearly that casein not only IS NOT carcinogenic but in fact protects rats against dying on liver poisoning by aflatoxins, so much that instead of dying of the quickly progressing liver decay, they continue living on until they die of more slowly developing cancer (from aflatoxins!).

In a sense Campbell own research of 1983 undermines Campbells own "China Study" book pivotal conclusion!.

Another study from India undermines that even more so:
"Effect of Low Protein Diet on Low Dose Chronic Aflatoxin B1 Induced Hepatic Injury in Rhesus Monkeys" http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/15569548909059756
The study done on Rhesus monkeys, showed that the life-prolonging effect of casein under the lower more realistic doses of cancerous poison (aflatoxin) is even more pronounced than under the high nearly lethal doses used by Campbell!
Furthermore, Campbells thesis on the unique role of "animal" (i.e. casein) protein in his rats experiment as opposed to a null effect using plant protein, is totally negated, again by his own earlier research of 1989 http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/81/16/1241.short where he demonstrated that wheat protein behaved like casein when lysine was added. Note: lysine is not synthesized in animals! So much for his "animal" protein thesis. Incidentally, the China study original monography http://www.ctsu.ox.ac.uk/~china/monograph/Mono_Mortality.pdf Does not correlate animal protein or animal fat with cancer or heart disease!
Stan (Heretic)

"Previous studies have shown that the development in rats of aflatoxin B1 (AFB1)-induced gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase-positive (GGT ) foci, indicators of early preneoplastic liver lesions, was markedly greater when a 20% casein diet was fed than when a 5% casein diet was fed during the postinitiation period. In the present study, the dose-response relationship between dietary protein level (dose) and emergence of AFB1-induced GGT foci (response) in livers of rats was determined. Male Fischer-344 rats fed a 20% casein diet were orally administered AFB1 at a dose level of 250 micrograms/(kg X d) (10 doses over 12 d). One week after the last dose, the animals were divided into eight groups and fed isoenergetic diets containing either 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 20 or 30% dietary casein for the remaining 12 wk of the study. The development of GGT foci, as measured by number and percent of liver volume occupied, displayed a response with three discrete phases. The lowest dietary protein levels, 4, 6, 8 and 10% casein, were associated with a minimal level of GGT foci development. Between 10 and 12% dietary casein, the development of GGT foci sharply increased, up to the 15-30% dietary casein level. The sudden increase in the formation of GGT foci at 10-12% dietary casein was just above the level of dietary casein (6-8%) required for maximum body weight gain. These results in this animal model suggest that protein intake in excess of that required to sustain maximum growth rate may enhance AFB1-induced cancer development."

"Animals fed high casein diets during this period exhibited an approximate 6-fold increase in the number of foci, regardless of the level of protein fed during the earlier dosing period. The marked increase in foci number (as well as area of liver occupied) in high casein diet animals during the postdosing period is regarded as an increased tendency for tumor development."

?????????

Because 5% casein diet or 5% protein diet is not sufficient for rats to live, as witnessed by him feeding his rats 20% casein diet prior to administering aflatoxins. Very low protein diet lead to a slow tissue death including death of cancerous tissue. It does not allow cancerous cells to proliferate and it does not allow healthy tissue to grow or regenerate either.

The rapid growth of cancerous lesion is an artifact of using the sub-lethal (near-deadly) doses of aflatoxin. Probably because the cancerous nodes were already widespread but unnoticed, prior to administering the high casein. The casein (as any good nutritious food would have done) simply accelerated the growth of what was already there. Please noticed that while the low casein group did not grow cancers they still lived much shorter spans and died earlier (half of them died), than the high casein cancerous rats, most of whom lived until were killed by the scientists!

The rhesus study I quoted previously showed that at lower doses higher protein causes FEWER cancerous lesions! Because the aflatoxins doses were not as lethal, the low protein fed monkeys lived long enough to grow MORE visible cancerous lesions than the high protein monkeys whose immune system strenghtened by a better diet managed to protect them from cancer to a larger extent.


Chemotherapy drugs also do not allow cancerous tissue to grow just like the plant (wheat) protein did not, as demonstrated in one of T.C. Campbell's own paper

http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/81/16/1241.short

That does not suggest that adding chemotherapy agents as healthy food ingredient!

By the same token and contrary to the logic, T.C. Campbell does advocate consuming plant protein exclusively, even though he himself acknowledged that they are inferior to animal proteins.


----

If I had to write a "sound byte" or an "executive" summary, I would put it as follows:

Poor diet = more degenerative diseases (incl cancer) and shorter life span but slower cancer growth

Stan (Heretic)

"The casein (as any good nutritious food would have done) simply accelerated the growth of what was already there. Please noticed that while the low casein group did not grow cancers they still lived much shorter spans and died earlier (half of them died), than the high casein cancerous rats, most of whom lived until were killed by the scientists!

The rhesus study I quoted previously showed that at lower doses higher protein causes FEWER cancerous lesions! Because the aflatoxins doses were not as lethal, the low protein fed monkeys lived long enough to grow MORE visible cancerous lesions than the high protein monkeys whose immune system strenghtened by a better diet managed to protect them from cancer to a larger extent."

Its hard to believe that researchers failed to see this....we have to assume they are competent so the only conclusion I can reach is that they had some deliberate intent to misrepresent the data.

"By the same token and contrary to the logic, T.C. Campbell does advocate consuming plant protein exclusively, even though he himself acknowledged that they are inferior to animal proteins. "

I have never heard this.Dr Campbell saying plant protein is inferior to animal protein....

Wow, you guys are so sexy. I am out of my depth here but it looks like the last sentence in the first abstract (written with Appleton) says that post dosing (?) definitely shows that the higher the casein level, the more foci. Could you explain this?

My problem with these experiments is the use of casein and extrapolating to all animal protein. Didn't Campbell also say somewhere that plant protein did not have the same effect?

I am thoroughly confused. Now I don't know what the heck to feed my rats.

Dolores















Dolores

Campbell did say plant protein did not have the same negative health consequences as animal protein but McDougall is even cautious of too much plant protein and recommends limiting beans.Fuhrman allows unlimited beans.

I think Heretic answered your question on the higher casein linked to more foci.

I'm also out of my depth but Heretic understands these studies much better than I do.

Re: "I have never heard this.Dr Campbell saying plant protein is inferior to animal protein...."

He used the words "low quality" and "high quality" in his 1989 paper:

"Effect of Dietary Protein Quality on Development of Aflatoxin B1 -Induced Hepatic Preneoplastic Lesions" David A. Schulsinger ,, Martin M. Root and T. Colin Campbell

http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/81/16/1241.short

Quote:

"Abstract
...
Feeding wheat gluten, a low-quality protein, during the post-initiation period (between the end of aflatoxin B1 dosing and the death of the rats) inhibited the development of 3B3-glutamyltransferase-positive foci when compared with that in animals fed high-quality protein (casein) diets during the same period."

What is a low quality protein? Since I believe the current wisdom is that plant foods do have complete protein (albeit more of some than others sometimes) that we are no longer being told to combine proteins-- such as beans and rice--in order to get complete protein I am wondering why animal proteins are considered superior. The original experiments were done on rats whose protein needs are greater. Have human experiments shown that one protein is superior to another? I do know that children who were once said to suffer from protein deprivation had their health return when they were fed more calories of the grain they were eating and that it isn't necessary to feed them animal protein. On the other hand, you would be lacking in thiamine if your diet depended on corn as the major component without treating it with lime.

Has it been reported that people such as those in Asia who have a rice based diet or those in the Andes who have a potato based diet suffer from protein deprivation?

Dolores

Protein deprivation...Vietnamese soldiers during the Vietnam war averaged 5ft 3 in tall and 112 pounds.The same was true for the Japanese men of the WW2 era and shortly after.I lived in Japan 1955-1957 and the size difference between westerners and Japanese was drastic.The men were the size of western 12 yr olds.

Do you think this a sign of protein deprivation even though it does not appear related to health.?

Sign of far lower calorie intake, if you ask me.

Might be calories instead of protein.

I wonder if there is any data showing protein unrelated to stunted growth or low calorie intake related to stunted. growth.

I'm not sure what to make of the low protein requirements idea that Dr McDougall and others propose.It conflicts with the medical/nutrition "official" scientific position.

Hi jc,

Read the Jan 2012 Scientific American, "The Pathway of Youth". The cover article is fascinating. It shows a metabolic pathway, that encourages growth during youth, in times of abundant food supply, and discourages growth in lean times. During the lean times, autophagy is increased, where cells with damaged components (mitochondria, misshapen proteins, etc) are salvaged to provide energy to get by, until food is more abundant.

During old age, during abundant food supply, which is always, today, this same metabolic process encourages growth, also including smooth muscle proliferation (atherosclerosis) and other growth, including fat accumulation, cancer, cell senescence and the general early degeneration that is typical of old age in a high calorie low nutrient environment. Again, this same metabolic pathway discourages autophagy, which discourages cell repair.

The article talks of attempting to develop a drug to change the metabolic pathway during old age, to turn off the cell growth promotion, and turn on the autophagy ability. The article also mentions that calorie restriction accomplishes this.

When people become as lean as Fuhrman recommends, they are reaching the beginning of the calorie restriction regime, without going hungry. The increase in phytochemicals and antioxidants encourate cancer cell apoptosis, as shown by many studies. The Scientific American article is, I believe, expounding another mechanism of how the Fuhrman diet improves our health.

Best regards, EngineerGuy