For those interested in research on diet and cancer

Another vote here too, though im still looking into suppliers at the moment re raw milk from local farmers,since DX however ive only been useing Orgainc Semi skimed Milk (and food) one of the recommendations from the President’s Cancer Panel in 2010 is to eat organic and avoid chemicals in food. Especially for children whose systems are not fully grown yet.
Organic milk is chemical-free. No antibiotics or hormones. The feed that organic cows eat is also pesticide and chemical free, and they are required to have access to pasture. You can wait for studies to come out proving one is healthier than the other, or you can just follow common sense and avoid chemicals when you can. A recent British study suggests that organic milk contains less saturated fat and more good fatty acids.

telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/8260780/Organic-milk-is-less-fatty-than-ordinary-milk.html

Annual Report President’s Cancer Panel

deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/pcp/annualReports/pcp09-10rpt/Addendum.pdf

Linda

PS .OAL, Semi-Skimmed Organic tastes just as creamy as full fat (but is less than 2% fat)so no need to use extra as not “waterery” at all! I could never drink regular semi-skimmed yuck!

some supermarkets sell organic un- homogonised milk, if you can find that it is better for you too.

my supplier of raw milk is beaconicecream.com/

Thanks OAL,i know Waitrose organic whole milk is un-homogenised as well as shops such as Planet Organic.
Manor Farm Dairies branded milks are not homogenised either and many local diaries around the UK now seem to provide organic non-homogenised milk.

Linda

Leadie, I know some say milk is bad, and others say it’s good (but there is no conclusive proof either way). From my point of view if milk is good I want to benefit from it - but if it’s bad (in terms of having lots of chemicals and hormones), then raw organic milk avoids these problems.
Raw organic milk is a very different animal to mass produced pasteurized milk (excuse the pun). Organic raw milk is produced from cows fed on organic pasture for most of the year, and when they are taken in for the winter they are fed on organic hay/silage and grain. Neither are they routinely given antibiotics, and if they require antibiotics, their milk is thrown away. Organic raw milk is also low in hormones, because the cows are not milked during the third trimester of pregnancy (when hormone levels are high), and neither are they fed hormones (in fact no dairy cows are fed hormones in Britain).
Organic raw milk also has the advantage of antibodies, which may be beneficial.
Really I don’t want to get into the debate about whether milk is good or bad, I just think raw milk may be a solution for those like me who are unsure. Just as an aside though. I have read that breast cancer in the Maasai people (who have a diet that consists almost exclusively of milk mixed with blood), is virtually unheard of.

Mmm, it’s so complex isn’t it?

Re the raw milk - the findings of J R Crewe were back in 1929 and don’t appear to have any scienfic back up. That’s not to say that there isn’t anything to it but I’d like to see some research as with any food product.

The Masai tribe as I understand it, are quite exceptional in that they appear to eat little to no vegetables and would by our standards be malnourished. It seems some research was published in 2010 looking at their diet:

eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-05/fj-npb051710.php

It would appear that blood is rarely eaten and the diet is largely milk, cornmeal and water. It seems their milk is fermented and is yoghurt-like in the rainy season.
One of the most things is that there blood is rich in Omega 3 although they don’t ingest any which they seem to put down to evolutionary adaptability. Elinda x

Lemongrove and others - I’m responding to the points raised on the other thread about soy as it may be of interest to others who want to look at diet.

The latest study looked at 5,000 chinese women who’d had breast cancer. Those that had the highest soy intake had a 30% lower death rate and nearly a 30% lower recurrance rate than those who at 5g of soy or less per day.

health.usnews.com/health-news/blogs/on-women/2009/12/09/yes-its-safe-to-eat-soy-if-you-have-breast-cancer

It’s also important to point out that the study controlled for ‘body mass index, exercise habits, tumor stages and other differences in diet’.

It is not suggesting that anyone takes soy supplements but not to worry about a soya latte or tofu with your dinner.

The other large study is about risk reduction. This looked at 73,223 chinese women. Those who at high intakes of soy in adolescence and adulthood had a substantially reduced risk of pre-menopausal breast cancer:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19403632

Another very interesting study on soy (published 2011) which tested oestrogen levels in nipple aspirate fluid (ouch!)comparing those on a high soy diet with those on a low soy diet. They found a trend towards lower oestrogen levels in those on the high soy diet:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21742946

Thanks for the links Elinda. I believe there was a chap called Dr George V Mann who did quite extensive studies of the Maasai in the 1990’s, and found that they are remarkably healthy (low incidence of heart disease, cancer or diabetes), despite their high milk diet so maybe they have developed a genetic advantage of some kind. It could also be that their milk is largely fermented - but it could also be that their milk is a lot healthier than the pasteurized stuff we tend to drink.

Hi everyone - have just got back this morning from spending two weeks with the Maasai in Tanzania - odd coincidence! They are indeed very healthy - but not so much the Tanzanians living in the cities and adopting a westernised diet.

While I was away I read The China Study by Prof Colin Campbell - and I’m kicking myself for not reading it a year and a half ago when I first heard of it. It’s an amazing book and I highly recommend it. It summarises his 40+ years as a nutritional biochemist, culminating in Emeritus Professor at Cornell. His career has focused primarily on the relationship between animal protein and cancer, but the book also covers other research on heart disease, diabetes, osteoporosis and auto-immune diseases. His findings are quite simply extraordinary, and answer pretty much every question we have every tried to answer on this thread. Including a detailed and very depressing summary, from an insider to the process, of the way the food and drug industry (in the USA ) has bought and paid for the academic research community, the medical establishment, the national health organisations and even cancer charities, to prevent good nutritional advice from reaching patients. It’s really shocking - so much worse than I thought.

I’ll post some more about it later.

fintyx

Welcome back finty and look forward to that read!!

Ok - first snippet from the book.

Prof Campbell discovered that the cancers he studied, although initiated by a carcinogen, only progressed to tumour development when the diet contained animal protein - and the cancer could be switched on and off simply by adding or subtracting animal protein in the diet.

The back story is that as an expert in toxins he was sent to the Philippines as part of a US Government task force to investigate the high level of child liver cancers. The culprit was found to be Aflatoxin - one of the strongest carcinogens ever discovered - which is found in mould on peanuts and corn. But there was an odd pattern to the cancers in that they disproportionately affected the children of wealthier families. In order to test the hypothesis that this was due to the greater protein content of the wealthy families’ diets, he embarked on a series of experiments that ran for many, many years.

He started with rats and gave them high or low doses of Aflatoxin. He then fed different groups on high or low amounts of plant or animal protein. Those fed plant protein all lived their natural life span of two years - even those given a high dose of Aflatoxin. They were slim, healthy and twice as active as a control group - none developed cancer. ALL those fed animal protein developed cancer and died. But remarkably, the speed with which they developed cancer correlated not with the amount of Aflatoxin they were given, but with the amount of animal protein they were fed. The protein they were fed is Casein - the protein in milk! He found that those fed low toxin but high (20%) casein developed cancer almost 20 times faster than those fed high toxin but low (5%) casein.

In case these results were a fluke, the experiment was repeated many, many times over many years always with the same result - the rats on a plant protein diet lived long and healthy lives with 0% cancer, but 100% of those fed even small amounts of casein developed liver cancer and died.

Prof Campbell then expanded the research to different animals, different toxins and different cancers - the result was always the same - 0% on a plant diet died vs 100% on a casein diet died. They had gone a long way to proving the hypothesis that it was diet leading the wealthier children to develop liver cancer at a higher rate than the poorer kids. They then went a stage further. After initiating cancer with casein, they started switching the diets to plant protein and back again. They found they could switch the cancer on and off merely by changing the diet.

They then went looking for mechanisms of action - to find out why animal protein was promoting cancer. They found so many they stopped looking for more. For instance they found that a plant diet decreased enzyme activity, and decreased carcinogen binding to DNA, Chromatin and Protein.

It was this body of work that led to the China Study - a twenty year collaboration between Oxford University and Cornell to study the effects of a plant based diet on the inhabitants of rural and semi rural China. At the time it was the largest nutritional study of it’s kind ever undertaken. What they found to a large extent mirrored the results with animals.

This is just a small part of the book - there is much, much more. And if you have a relative with heart disease or diabetes (even Type 1) there is much in the book to encourage them that their disease can be reversed simply with diet.

Thanks Leadie x

The next really interesting section concerns Vitamin D, and it is fascinating. As we have discussed here many times Vitamin D (not really a vitamin but a hormone) plays an important if not fully understood role in preventing disease, and northern hemisphere communities get more of the following diseases the further north you get: Type 1 Diabetes, MS, rheumatoid arthritis, osteoporosis, breast cancer, prostate cancer and colon cancer - plus others.

But according to Prof Campbell it is not serum Vit D that plays this role. Vit D is stored in the liver, and when required some of this Vit D is transported to the kidneys where another enzyme converts it to a fast acting metabolite called Vit 1,25D, which is active for just a few hours. This metabolite is about 1,000 times more active than stored Vit D. It is a very delicate system that can easily be thrown out of balance. Studies have shown consistently low levels of 1,25 D increases the risk of the diseases listed above - so what causes low levels of 1,25D? Food rich in calcium (ie dairy)and foods that create an acidic environment in the blood (mainly animal proteins and some grains).

Prof Campbells’ view is that supplementing Vit D won’t do you much good if your diet is preventing the Vit D being metabolised to 1,25D. And that if your diet is suitable, only a minimal level of supplementation is required for those not getting enough daily sunshine.

Hi Finty

First of all, did you have a good holiday?

Another coincidence is that I ordered The China Study earlier today. It keeps cropping up with things I read so I thought it was time to read it.

I don’t know how far you’ve got in the book yet but does he talk about soy? As we know it’s high in IGF-1 (like animal protein) but did he find any connections?

Elinda x

Wow , this is heady stuff! Bring on the next episode!

Well done Finty!

DaisyGirl xx

Hi Elinda - I had a brilliant holiday thanks, lots of Safari and then Zanzibar for some beach R&R.

I have finished the book - all 400 pages in nearly one sitting - as have my husband and daughter, and my son is currently reading it. They all made drastic diet changes in the middle of our holiday as a result - causing some consternation for the lodges where we were staying that weren’t expecting it! My meat and cheese loving husband became vegan overnight after reading the evidence on heart disease - I had hoped he would make a few changes but am absolutely stunned (and delighted) at his reaction. The book is that powerful - especially for him, coming from a family with a strong history of heart disease.

Re soy and IGF1 - he does talk about both IGF1 and soy, but not in the context of soy raising IGF1. He included soy as one of the many plant proteins he tested to see whether they were cancer promoting and found they were not, but I’m not sure if this was specifically breast cancer or other cancers he was testing.

Other interesting stuff in the book concerns genetics and cancer. He says virtually everyone with a serious disease has a genetic predisposition - we just haven’t identified the genes yet, and believes it is largely a waste of resources trying to do so. But this doesn’t mean you will get cancer - genes are dormant and to have any affect have to be activated (ie “expressed”). A carcinogen can activate the gene and produce a pre-cancerous foci, but then it is environment and diet that determines whether the foci will progress to form tumours and spread - as he proved with the animal studies, and observed in the Philippines.

Another very interesting section is about the research we read on diet, and the view that what purports to be studies trying to find nutritional information about cancer are no more than an attempt by the supplement industry to identify single nutrients to sell back to us in a bottle. He is very scathing about removing nutrients from food, and considers in a plant based diet the only supplements necessary are Vit D and B12, and then only if you live in a northern clime and don’t eat organic veg (B12 comes from organisms in non-sterile soil). Otherwise it is a diet nutritionally superior in every way to an animal based diet.

He also discusses in great detail long running diet programmes that were able to reverse with 100% success advanced heart disease and Type 2 diabetes. It also answers one of the many questions here - why aren’t we told about all this? Amazingly the cardiologist that was able to reverse advanced heart disease with diet alone, at one of the most prestigious hospitals in the US, couldn’t get a single one of the other 60 cardiologists to refer a patient to his programme, despite using it themselves and for family members. His programme was a three hour consultation on diet and weekly follow-ups. They had spent years training to do heart surgery for which they could charge up to 100,000, and weren’t willing to admit a three hour consultation with a diet specialist could do better than all their expertise. Scandalously, the programme eventually closed.

That three hour consultation is another clue - anyone ever get to spend three hours with an oncologist?

There’s also a lot on the latest milk controversy mentioned on this thread - concerning CLA in milk preventing cancer in mice. Prof Campbell was made aware of an organisation that he called the “Airport Club” because they met in airports around the USA. This group of 7 prominent research scientists was retained by the animal based food industry (National Dairy Council and the American Meat Institute) to monitor Campbell and keep tabs on any research likely to damage the industry. I promise I’m not making this up - he has leaked documents to prove it. It was a member of this group that did the CLA research, funded by the dairy industry. But the kicker is, the effect they found whilst trying to find any good news for dairy in regards to cancer, can never be replicated by eating dairy because of some manipulation they did to the enzyme system that cannot happen in diet. He calls it a fake controversy.

Welcome back Finty. I bought the China Study just over a year ago and I haven’t read it. I’ve dived in now! Thank you!

Excellent Surfie - it’s also a very readable book and you don’t have to be into science at all to follow the logic of it - I was totally gripped.

Hi Finty

We know that there are many differences between the way animals are reared in the UK compared to the USA. Before I go out and buy the book, did you get the impression from the book that this is universal and not just applicable to the USA?

Thanks
DaisyGirl xx

Glad the holiday was so good!

Can’t wait for my copy to arrive. This sounds like quite shocking stuff.
I’m hoping my husband will read it as he’s such a meat lover - he eats way too much. Elinda x