The China Study by T. Colin Campbell, Thomas M. Campbell Page B
Authors: T. Colin Campbell, Thomas M. Campbell
Ads: Link
that,
for much of our lives, we are being exposed to small amounts of cancer-
causing chemicals, but cancer does not occur unless we consume foods
that promote and nurture tumor development? Can we control cancer
through nutrition?
NOT ALL PROTEINS ARE ALIKE
If you have followed the story so far, you have seen how provocative
these findings are. Controlling cancer through nutrition was, and still
is, a radical idea. But as if this weren't enough, one more issue would
yield explOSive information: did it make any difference what type of
protein was used in these experiments? For all of these experiments,
we were using casein, which makes up 87% of cow's milk protein. So
the next logical question was whether plant protein, tested in the same
way, has the same effect on cancer promotion as casein. The answer is
an astonishing "NO." In these experiments, plant protein did not promote
cancer growth, even at the higher levels of intake. An undergraduate pre-
medical student doing an honors degree with me, David Schulsinger,
did the study (Chart 3.842 ) . Gluten, the protein of wheat, did not produce
the same result as casein, even when fed at the same 20% level.
60 THE CHINA STUDY
CHART 3.8: PROTEIN TYPE AND FOCI RESPONSE
100
OJ
.20% Casein
Vl
C
o
0..
.20% Gluten
lD 50
0:::
0 5 % Casein
'0
o
L.L
o -i"---
Protein Type
We also examined whether soy protein had the same effect as casein
on foci development. Rats fed 20% soy protein diets did not form. early foci,
just like the 20% wheat protein diets. Suddenly protein, milk protein in this
case, wasn't looking so good. We had discovered that low protein intake
reduces cancer initiation and works in multiple synchronous ways. As if
that weren't enough, we were finding that high protein intake, in excess
of the amount needed for growth, promotes cancer after initiation. Like
flipping a light switch on and off, we could control cancer promotion
merely by changing levels of protein, regardless of initial carcinogen
exposure. But the cancer-promoting factor in this case was cow's milk
protein. It was difficult enough for my colleagues to accept the idea that
protein might help cancer grow, but cow's milk protein? Was I crazy?
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS
For those readers who want to know somewhat more, I've includ-
e d a few questions in AppendiX A.
THE GRAND FINALE
Thus far we had relied on experiments where we measured only the ear-
ly indicators of tumor development, the early cancer-like foci. Now, it
was time to do the big study, the one where we would measure complete
tumor formation. We organized a very large study of several hundred
rats and examined tumor formation over their lifetimes using several
different approaches. 36, 43
TURNING OFF CANCER 61
The effects of protein feeding on tumor development were nothing
less than spectacular. Rats generally live for about two years, thus the
study was 100 weeks in length. All animals that were administered afla-
t o x i n and fed the regular 20% levels of casein either were dead or near
death from liver tumors at 100 weeks.36 . 43 All animals administered the
same level of aflatoxin but fed the low 5% protein diet were alive, active
and thrifty, with sleek hair coats at 100 weeks . This was a virtual 100 to
o score, something almost never seen in research and almost identical
to the original research in India. 1 6
In this same experiment,36 we switched the diets of some rats at either
forty or sixty weeks, to again investigate the reversibility of cancer pro-
motion. Animals switched from a high-protein to a low-protein diet had
significantly less tumor growth (35°tb-40% less!) than animals fed a high-
p r o t e i n diet. Animals switched from a low-protein diet to a high-protein
CHART 3.9A: TUMOR DEVELOPMENT AT 100 WEEKS
3330
QJ
VI
c
o
0..
VI
QJ
': 2350
o
E
:J
f-
:J
LL
240
6% 22%
14%
CHART 3.98: EARLY FOCI, "LlFETIME"
40
6
QJ
VI
C
0
0.. • 14
VI
.... 20
QJ
'u
for much of our lives, we are being exposed to small amounts of cancer-
causing chemicals, but cancer does not occur unless we consume foods
that promote and nurture tumor development? Can we control cancer
through nutrition?
NOT ALL PROTEINS ARE ALIKE
If you have followed the story so far, you have seen how provocative
these findings are. Controlling cancer through nutrition was, and still
is, a radical idea. But as if this weren't enough, one more issue would
yield explOSive information: did it make any difference what type of
protein was used in these experiments? For all of these experiments,
we were using casein, which makes up 87% of cow's milk protein. So
the next logical question was whether plant protein, tested in the same
way, has the same effect on cancer promotion as casein. The answer is
an astonishing "NO." In these experiments, plant protein did not promote
cancer growth, even at the higher levels of intake. An undergraduate pre-
medical student doing an honors degree with me, David Schulsinger,
did the study (Chart 3.842 ) . Gluten, the protein of wheat, did not produce
the same result as casein, even when fed at the same 20% level.
60 THE CHINA STUDY
CHART 3.8: PROTEIN TYPE AND FOCI RESPONSE
100
OJ
.20% Casein
Vl
C
o
0..
.20% Gluten
lD 50
0:::
0 5 % Casein
'0
o
L.L
o -i"---
Protein Type
We also examined whether soy protein had the same effect as casein
on foci development. Rats fed 20% soy protein diets did not form. early foci,
just like the 20% wheat protein diets. Suddenly protein, milk protein in this
case, wasn't looking so good. We had discovered that low protein intake
reduces cancer initiation and works in multiple synchronous ways. As if
that weren't enough, we were finding that high protein intake, in excess
of the amount needed for growth, promotes cancer after initiation. Like
flipping a light switch on and off, we could control cancer promotion
merely by changing levels of protein, regardless of initial carcinogen
exposure. But the cancer-promoting factor in this case was cow's milk
protein. It was difficult enough for my colleagues to accept the idea that
protein might help cancer grow, but cow's milk protein? Was I crazy?
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS
For those readers who want to know somewhat more, I've includ-
e d a few questions in AppendiX A.
THE GRAND FINALE
Thus far we had relied on experiments where we measured only the ear-
ly indicators of tumor development, the early cancer-like foci. Now, it
was time to do the big study, the one where we would measure complete
tumor formation. We organized a very large study of several hundred
rats and examined tumor formation over their lifetimes using several
different approaches. 36, 43
TURNING OFF CANCER 61
The effects of protein feeding on tumor development were nothing
less than spectacular. Rats generally live for about two years, thus the
study was 100 weeks in length. All animals that were administered afla-
t o x i n and fed the regular 20% levels of casein either were dead or near
death from liver tumors at 100 weeks.36 . 43 All animals administered the
same level of aflatoxin but fed the low 5% protein diet were alive, active
and thrifty, with sleek hair coats at 100 weeks . This was a virtual 100 to
o score, something almost never seen in research and almost identical
to the original research in India. 1 6
In this same experiment,36 we switched the diets of some rats at either
forty or sixty weeks, to again investigate the reversibility of cancer pro-
motion. Animals switched from a high-protein to a low-protein diet had
significantly less tumor growth (35°tb-40% less!) than animals fed a high-
p r o t e i n diet. Animals switched from a low-protein diet to a high-protein
CHART 3.9A: TUMOR DEVELOPMENT AT 100 WEEKS
3330
QJ
VI
c
o
0..
VI
QJ
': 2350
o
E
:J
f-
:J
LL
240
6% 22%
14%
CHART 3.98: EARLY FOCI, "LlFETIME"
40
6
QJ
VI
C
0
0.. • 14
VI
.... 20
QJ
'u
Similar Books
