The Reading Room - Nutrition and fighting cancer

Careful of reading too much into this
Hi, I have to say that I have a hard time believing the statements he makes in this interview. Especially after I read some of the comments following the article.
Consider this, for example:

"As a research scientist and author of several books on nature-based illness prevention, I would like to add the following regarding The China Study.

When Campbell completed his study, he presented it to a conference of his peers, which I attended. Basically he was laughed off the stage. It was clear to the audience that what he had shown, which most of us already knew, was that a majority of humans of Asian descent are intolerant of casein, a cow milk protein. Remove casein from their diet, and their health improves. His conclusions that this study implies that other animal foods are in any way harmful are unsupported by his research. I know of no studies that show harm from eating animals raised as nature intended - grass and grub fed free range animals free of hormones and antibiotics."

Here is another comment on the China Study:

"Going back through my copy of The China Study, I find no experimental evidence for his generalization from casein in rat chow to total animal protein in rat chow, let alone in human diets. Furthermore, I see no basis for extrapolating the monster doses of casein in the rat chow to the realistic range of casein in a human diet. (NB: The 5% level that was completely safe for the rats equals a quart of milk or 1/4 lb of cheddar cheese every day on a 2000-calorie diet.) Since he doesn't cite any evidence and nobody here has been able to offer any either, I infer that it doesn't exist.

Which leaves his argument standing on epidemiology. Campbell devotes only one chapter out of his book to the actual China-Cornell-Oxford Project; the rest is stats (mostly between-countries) hand-picked from all over the place to make his point. Admittedly, he has a lot of them. Like everybody, I've never seen the actual 900-page China Project paper, but I have read reviews of it that call into question his interpretation of the data, a lot of which seem to be first-order correlations. The tabulated data I've seen on the web don't support him at all; in fact, they showed a statistically insignificant negative correlation with meat and a significant positive one with wheat. Meanwhile, the massive WCRF/AICR meta-analysis found milk consumption to be protective against colorectal and (weakly) bladder cancer (and weakly risky for prostate cancer).

In other words, the epidemiological data on this are mixed, period. Here's an example from Campbell's very own Cornell: http://envirocancer.cornell.edu/factsheet/diet/fs33.dairy.cfm "


Campbell makes a big deal out of dairy products, since they contain the protein casein which he claims is a potent carcinogen. The science is not clear on this point. For example, the latest research shows that the opposite is possibly true, and that casein has anti-tumorogenic properties. For example,

Growth-inhibiting activity of casein and its hydrolysate to tumor cells,
MAO X. Y. ; REN F. Z. ; LI Y. H. ; NAN Q. X. ;
and
http://www.vitalus.com/pdf/Glutathione&whey.pdf
"Growth-inhibiting activity of casein and its hydrolysate to tumor cells", MAO X. Y. ; REN F. Z. ; LI Y. H. ; NAN Q. X. ;

The take-home message is to take this information with a grain of salt.

Best,
Jeremy

GetBusyLivin said:

Jeremy, thanks for your reply
I do admit to being confused and frustrated about this topic. On one had I have our doctor, who is telling us to let Richard eat whatever he wants to keep weight on. On the other hand, I have seen and read the (anecdotal though it may be) evidence for nutrition playing a key role in beating cancer. I know it is a hot topic even on this board.

Thank you so much for your advice, and I have learned to take a lot of information with a grain of salt! I'm still relatively ignorant about many aspects of this topic. I wonder, though, where is the scientific research? Our doctor says the studies just aren't there to back up the claims of the pro-nutrition camp. I'm really conflicted about this.

Healthy Diets
GetBusyLivin:

Thanks for posting your article. I enjoy and learn a great deal from reading varying points of view. (Thanks to Jeremy, too. Healthy skepticism is a good thing.)

I confess that I haven't read The China Study nor do I know anything about the credentials of its author. On the other hand, I do follow Dr. Dean Ornish's writing/research pretty closely because my husband is a triple threat (colon cancer, heart disease and a history of prostate cancer). Dr. Ornish has done research on the effect of a vegan diet on prostate cancer and his "take" at this point seems to be to avoid dairy. (His heart research has led him to recommend low or no-fat dairy--in moderation-- for heart disease patients. UCLA Jonsson Cancer center also posts a statement about a possible link between high-fat dairy and prostate cancer.)

Absent definitive evidence to the contrary, my approach is to default to a healthy, low-fat diet. In our family's case (for personal reasons and because my husband also suffers from heart disease), our low-fat diet is vegan. I have to admit that my cooking approach has been severely challenged in the last three years because of our dietary changes, but I now have developed a fairly-large repertoire of healthy and enjoyable recipes.

Hatshepsut

P.S. Great dog. He/she is giving you a pretty stern look in that photograph. I hope there was a significant treat (lowfat, of course!) given after the picture ordeal.

jscho said:

importance of nutrition
Hi all, I don't want to give the impression that I don't think nutrition is important. There is solid scientific evidence that it does make a difference. For example, I've commented before on the importance of a diabetic diet where spikes in insulin levels are avoided. As I've said before, high insulin levels lead to high levels of free insulin growth factor, which stimulates cell growth. Exercise is also important, as depleting glycogen stores in cells suppresses cell activity through a well-understood mechanism that is activated by low cellular levels of ATP. In addition, simple things like taking low levels of aspirin also seem to help fight colon cancer.

I just don't buy the casein argument, unless one focuses on individuals who are allergic to casein or lactose. In this case, irritation is most definitely a cause of increased cellular activity.

We can all do simple things to help discourage cancer growth. When I finish my 12th round of Folfox this week, I plan to implement a anti-cancer regimen with a diabetic diet, aspirin, vitamin D, and plenty of exercise. I think doing this will help me feel as though I am still actively fighting the disease.

Best to all,
Jeremy

Very interesting
Jeremy,

I am doing the same thing with respect to supplements as I am finishing up my last 3 chemo treatments over the next month and a half. I also juice. My question is how much aspirin do you plan to take? I read one study that cited 2 tabs per day but I am not sure what I will do.

Thanks!
Amy

mom_2_3 said:

Very interesting
Jeremy,

I am doing the same thing with respect to supplements as I am finishing up my last 3 chemo treatments over the next month and a half. I also juice. My question is how much aspirin do you plan to take? I read one study that cited 2 tabs per day but I am not sure what I will do.

Thanks!
Amy

Hi, I am planning to take
Hi, I am planning to take the equivalent of 1 baby aspirin a day (83 mg, I think). You can buy maintenance dose aspirin, originally intended for circulatory issues, at the pharmacy. I want to keep the dosage low to avoid side-effects, and the literature indicates that the dose doesn't seem to be that important (see Diane's follow up).

Best wishes,
Jeremy

dianetavegia said:

Actually Jeremy ...low dose (
Actually Jeremy, US studies used a baby aspirin and low dose aspirin and found it did NOT help in any way with cc. Only a dosage of 300 mg or more helped.

Hi Diane. Can you give me a
Hi Diane. Can you give me a reference for this study? I read the Chan article in JAMA, 302 p649 (2009) which claims that the survival statistic (age-adjusted HR) was only mildly dose-responsive. They group aspirin users into the 0.5-5 standard aspirin (300 mg) per week and more than 6 per week categories. The lower dosage group shows basically an equivalent response statistically to aspirin (HR 0.57 +- 0.24 for low usage group to HR 0.46 +-0.3). This is the basis for my rationale for taking 7x83 mg aspirin per week (roughly 2 full-dose aspirin).

It does say the the tumor has to express COX-2 to be effective, and one never knows whether this is true without genetic analysis.

Thanks for the heads up,
Jeremy