I have been working closely recently with a few extraordinary nutritional researchers, and I find that the information they have compiled is quite eye opening. Interestingly, what these highly esteemed doctors are saying is just beginning to be understood and accepted, perhaps because what they are saying does not conveniently fit in with or support the multi-billion dollar food industries that profit from our "not knowing". One thing is for sure: we are getting sicker and more obese than our health care system can handle, and the conventional methods of dealing with disease often have harmful side effects and are ineffective for some patients.
As it is now, one out of every two of us will get cancer or heart disease and die from it - an ugly and painful death as anyone who has witnessed it can attest. And starting in the year 2000, one out of every three children who are born after that year will develop diabetes--a disease that for most sufferers (those with Type 2 diabetes) is largely preventable with lifestyle changes. This is a rapidly emerging crisis, the seriousness of which I'm not sure we have yet recognized. The good news is, the means to prevent and heal disease seems to be right in front of us; it's in our food. Quite frankly, our food choices can either kill us - which mounting studies say that they are, or they can lift us right out of the disease process and into soaring health.
In the next few months, I will share a series of interviews I've conducted with the preeminent doctors and nutritional researchers in the fields of their respective expertise. And here it is straight out: they are all saying the same thing in different ways and through multiple and varying studies: animal protein seems to greatly contribute to diseases of nearly every type; and a plant-based diet is not only good for our health, but it's also curative of the very serious diseases we face .
Cancer
On the subject of cancer, I've asked Dr. T. Colin Campbell, Professor Emeritus of Cornell University and author of the groundbreaking The China Study to explain how cancer happens and what we can do to prevent and reverse it. Dr. Campbell's work is regarded by many as the definitive epidemiological examination of the relationship between diet and disease. He has received more than 70 grant years of peer-reviewed research funding, much of which was funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), and he has authored more than 300 research papers. He grew up on a dairy farm believing in the great health value of animal protein in the American diet and set out in his career to investigate how to produce more and better animal protein. Troublesome to his preconceived hypothesis of the goodness of dairy, Dr. Campbell kept running up against results that consistently proved an emerging and comprehensive truth: that animal protein is disastrous to human health.
Through a variety of experimental study designs, epidemiological evidence, along with observation of real life conditions which had rational biological explanation, Dr. Campbell has made a direct and powerful correlation between cancer (and other diseases and illnesses) and animal protein. Following is a conversation I had with him so that I could better understand the association.
KF: What happens in the body when cancer develops? What is the actual process?
TCC: Cancer generally develops over a long period of time, divided into 3 stages, initiation, promotion and progression.
Initiation occurs when chemicals or other agents attack the genes of normal cells to produce genetically modified cells capable of eventually causing cancer. The body generally repairs most such damage but if the cell reproduces itself before it is repaired, its new (daughter) cell retains this genetic damage. This process may occur within minutes and, to some extent, is thought to be occurring most of the time in most of our tissues.
Promotion occurs when the initiated cells continue to replicate themselves and grow into cell masses that eventually will be diagnosed. This is a long growth phase occurring over months or years and is known to be reversible.
Progression occurs when the growing cancer masses invade neighboring tissues and/or break away from the tissue of origin (metastasis) and travel to distant tissues when they are capable of growing independently at which point they are considered to be malignant.
KF: Why do some people get cancer, and other don't? What percentage is genetic, and what percentage has to do with diet?
TCC: Although the initiated cells are not considered to be reversible, the cells growing through the promotion stage are usually considered to be reversible, a very exciting concept. This is the stage that especially responds to nutritional factors. For example, the nutrients from animal based foods, especially the protein, promote the development of the cancer whereas the nutrients from plant-based foods, especially the antioxidants, reverse the promotion stage. This is a very promising observation because cancer proceeds forward or backward as a function of the balance of promoting and anti-promoting factors found in the diet, thus consuming anti-promoting plant-based foods tend to keep the cancer from going forward, perhaps even reversing the promotion. The difference between individuals is almost entirely related to their diet and lifestyle practices.
Although all cancer and other diseases begin with genes, this is not the reason whether or not the disease actually appears. If people do the right thing during the promotion stage, perhaps even during the progression stage, cancer will not appear and if it does, might even be resolved. Most estimates suggest that not more than 2-3 percent of cancers are due entirely to genes; almost all the rest is due to diet and lifestyle factors. Consuming plant based foods offers the best hope of avoiding cancer, perhaps even reversing cancer once it is diagnosed. Believing that cancer is attributed to genes is a fatalistic idea but believing that cancer can be controlled by nutrition is a far more hopeful idea.
KF: You said that initially something attacks the genes, chemicals or other agents; like what?
TCC: Cancer, like every other biological event--good or bad--begins with genes. In the case of cancer, gene(s) that give rise to cancer either may be present when we are born or, during our lifetimes, normal genes may be converted into cancer genes by certain highly reactive chemicals (i.e., carcinogens).
Consider 'cancer genes' as seeds that grow into tumor masses only if they are 'fed'. The 'feeding' comes from wrongful nutrition. It's like growing a lawn. We plant seeds but they don't grow into grass (or weeds) unless they are provided water, sunlight and nutrients. So it is with cancer. In reality, we are planting seeds all of our lifetime although some may be present at birth, not only for cancer but also for other events as well. But this mostly does not matter unless we 'nourish' their growth.
The chemicals that create these cancer genes are called 'carcinogens'. Most carcinogens of years past have been those that attack normal genes to give cancer genes. These are initiating carcinogens, or initiators. But more recently, carcinogens also may be those that promote cancer growth. They are promoting carcinogens, or promoters.
Our work showed that casein is the most relevant cancer promoter ever discovered.
Aside from chemicals initiating or promoting cancer, other agents such as cosmic rays (energetic particles) from the sun or from the outer reaches of space may impact our genes to cause them to change (i.e., mutate) so that they could give rise to cancer 'seeds'. The most important point to consider is that we cannot do much about preventing initiation but we can do a lot about preventing promotion. The initiating idea is fatalistic and outside of our control but the promotion idea is hopeful because we can change our exposure to promoting agents and reverse the cancer process, thus is within our control.
KF: What exactly is so bad about animal protein?
TCC: I don't choose the word "exactly" because it suggests something very specific. Rather, casein causes a broad spectrum of adverse effects.
Among other fundamental effects, it makes the body more acidic, alters the mix of hormones and modifies important enzyme activities, each of which can cause a broad array of more specific effects. One of these effects is its ability to promote cancer growth (by operating on key enzyme systems, by increasing hormone growth factors and by modifying the tissue acidity). Another is its ability to increase blood cholesterol (by modifying enzyme activities) and to enhance atherogenesis, which is the early stage of cardiovascular disease.
And finally, although these are casein-specific effects, it should be noted that other animal-based proteins are likely to have the same effect as casein.
KF: Ok, so I am clear that it's wise to avoid casein, which is intrinsic in dairy (milk and cheese), but how is other animal protein, such as chicken, steak, or pork, implicated in the cause and growth of cancer?
TCC: I would first say that casein is not just "intrinsic" but IS THE MAIN PROTEIN OF COW MILK, REPRESENTING ABOUT 87% OF THE MILK PROTEIN.
The biochemical systems which underlie the adverse effects of casein are also common to other animal-based proteins. Also, the amino acid composition of casein, which is the characteristic primarily responsible for its property, is similar to most other animal-based proteins. They all have what we call high 'biological value', in comparison, for example, with plant-based proteins, which is why animal protein promotes cancer growth and plant protein doesn't.
KF: Isn't anything in moderation ok, as long as we don't overdo it?
TCC: I rather like the expression told by my friend, Caldwell Esselstyn, Jr., MD, the Cleveland Clinic surgeon who reversed heart disease and who says, "Moderation kills!" I prefer to go the whole way, not because we have fool-proof evidence showing that 100% is better than, say, 95% for every single person for every single condition but that it is easier to avoid straying off on an excursion that too often becomes a slippery slope back to our old ways. Moreover, going the whole way allows us to adapt to new unrealized tastes and to rid ourselves of some old addictions. And finally, moderation often means very different things for different people.
KF: Are you saying that if one changes their diet from animal based protein to plant-based protein that the disease process of cancer can be halted and reversed?
TCC: Yes, this is what our experimental research shows. I also have become aware of many anecdotal claims by people who have said that their switch to a plant-based diet stopped even reversed (cured?) their disease. One study on melanoma has been published in the peer-reviewed literature that shows convincing evidence that cancer progression is substantially halted with this diet.
KF: How long does it take to see changes?
TCC: It is not clear because carefully designed research in humans has not been done. However, we demonstrated and published findings showing that experimental progression of disease is at least suspended, even reversed, when tumors are clearly present.
KF: Consider a person who has been eating poorly his whole life; is there still hope that a dietary change can make a big difference? Or is everything already in motion?
TCC: Yes, a variety of evidence shows that cancers and non-cancers alike can be stopped even after consuming a poor diet earlier in life. This effect is equivalent to treatment, a very exciting concept.
KF: This is sounding like it's a cure for cancer; is that the case?
TCC: Yes. The problem in this area of medicine is that traditional doctors are so focused on the use of targeted therapies (chemo, surgery, radiation) that they refuse to even acknowledge the use of therapies like nutrition and are loathe to even want to do proper research in this area. So, in spite of the considerable evidence--theoretical and practical--to support a beneficial nutritional effect, every effort will be made to discredit it. It's a self-serving motive.
KF: What else do you recommend one does to avoid, stop, or reverse cancer?
TCC: A good diet, when coupled with other health promoting activities like exercise, adequate fresh air and sunlight, good water and sleep, will be more beneficial. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
For help on how to lean into a plant based diet, check out my blog post here; and for recipes click here.
For more information about diet and cancer, visit tcolincampbell.org.
Kathy Freston: Flu Season: Factory Farming Could Cause A Catastrophic Pandemic
It shows that the amounts of vitamin D needed to greatly reduce your chance of getting cancer is much more than the amount needed to prevent rickets or bone problems. It also tells how to find out just how much you need. It also has side effect of lowering your chances of getting the flu. You can even get free vitamin D from sunlight.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQ-qekFoi-o&feature=player_embedded#
John Hopkins Medical School says that cancer is a disease of many factors. They have broccoli sprouts in food stores that they have patented by making them extra high in sulforophane-- a cacner fighting phytochemical. Their Brassica Foundation is studying plants to use for cures for cancer and other diseases. As far as many factors, that means the pollution from the air, the pollution in your house and many other things can affect cancer. For example someone who does not smoke can get lung cancer from second hand smoke. http://www.graviolaleaves.com There is a University of California video on youtube about cancer and vitamin D. It show that vitamin D is very effective at preventing cancer according to recent studies.
I began eating mostly fruits & veggies in March of this year and as of my latest PET scan in August, the mass in the bone of my sternum is GONE, the tumors behind my sternum are gone and I'm down to a single much reduced tumor in my right breast and a single much reduced tumor in my right arm pit!
I have had no chemo, radiation or other chemical treatment. I am proud to say that we are ALL capable of curing our own disease... with information! Thanks to the author for spreading this life saving news.
KCB / Fayetteville, Georgia
Campbell's work in the 1980s - BEFORE he emabrked on the China study showed that the major protein in cow's milk - CASEIN - is a promoter of cancer! Its is NOT a carcinogen in its own right.
Then there was a thread about Kefir ( a fermented milk product and one of many from the Balkans and Eastern Europe). Somehow the writer has got the idea that casein is OK after all - its in Kefir and the longevity of people in the Balkans shows its OK.
A quick Google Scholar seacrch will get you to the research. Casein is digested by the bacteria in kefir.
Go back and read Cambpells book. Get your science correct!
I do not intend to comment on his credibility nor on the crits but offer this.
We evolved as hunter gatherers and as such we would have eaten a diet that contained the occasional meat, nuts, berries, fruit and any other plant based material found ( by trial and error) to be non-toxic. This would have gone on for millenia. I venture to suggest that at no time along this pathway did we consume such large quantities of milk other than that delivered via breast feeding.
If cow's milk casein is playing an unwanted role in cancer it might well be because of its "recent" appearance in our diet.
That is a 28 year difference compared to the 80% meat/fat diet Inuit. By the way, I do work in the health field serving the native "Indian" population. My experience tells me some significant changes need to be made in their diet and lifestyle - of great concern is the incredible epidemic in obesity related type II diabetes (reaching 80-100% of the adult population in some tribes), significant problems with heart disease, and in the increased rate of cancer compared to the general population. The natives of today do not look at all the same as their elders in the old turn of the century black and white photographs!
Here is another link on a 2001 study: http://lifetwo.com/production/node/20070107-longevity-seventh-day-adventists-life-expectancy
Note on the above study - the life expectancy comparing vegetarian SVA vs. non-vegetarian SVA's. The difference is minimal based on diet, although statistically significant...2-2.5 years. Other lifestyle differences have the greater impact (9 years or so) - controlled weight vs. obesity, daily exercise or not, smoking history, and a daily bowl of nuts (LOL).
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/03/23/healthmag.red.meat.lifespan/index.html
All these nonsense, anti-meat studies have a fatal flaw. They all rely on the false assumption that people with either eat lots of meat and no vegetables, or no meat and lots of vegetables.
The best diet to prevent disease and avoid obesity is lean meat, lots of vegetables, and whole grains. The worst diet is processed garbage and American fast food. Most "plant based" diets fall somewhere in between.
Right after it was done, it was all over the TV news. So you are saying that you are right and they are wrong. Well actually on this post, I started a thread (I am GINKGO on it) that complained about the same thing and said that if you change more than one variable then you do not know what caused the change.
Now I had many people disagree with me, as you can see by looking at it. So what did I do? I gave them website after website after website that explained that exact thing-- called the scientific method.
http://www.stevepavlina.com/forums/health-fitness/33137-most-health-problems-caused-lack-intelligence.html
But then there are no phytochemicals in animal foods whereas plant foods contain thousands of phytochemicals like resveratrol (in dark grapes), lycopene (in tomatoes and watermelon) and sulphoropahane that is in broccoli sprouts. They have already identified over 900 phytochemicals, but who is counting?
Nowhere in the article does Preston acknowledge that Campbell's work has been widely criticized, or that his data barely matches up with his pronouncements. Nowhere do they mention that whey protein has been shown to have a protective effect, which throws his generalizations into question. And nowhere does she address the fact, documented by countless anthropologists, that indigenous hunter-gatherer societies like the Alaskan Inuit (who consumed a diet almost wholly comprised of animal protein, with 80% of calories coming from fat) had microscopic rates of cancer and heart disease.
The American diet is deeply flawed, but it's not because of animal protein. If your diet consists mainly of lean meat, vegetables, and whole grains, and you are not eating in caloric excess, you are not at high risk for cancer or heart disease. To equate someone who eats chicken breasts and broccoli with someone who devours Big Macs on a regular basis is just plain intellectually dishonest.
Here is a link - posting current dietary/lifesytle gov guidelines in the prevention of the above:
http://www.guideline.gov/summary/summary.aspx?ss=15&doc_id=5620&nbr=3790
For the past 1.5 years or so I have inadvertently used myself as somewhat of a test bed that has pitted the low fat, plant based (high carbohydrate) diet against the Atkins, low carb, lifestyle. I say “lifestyle” because it is not a diet. I didn’t need to loose weight I was just concerned about high cholesterol.
I first bought the China study as well as Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn’s book and followed them religiously for about 8 months. Everything was low fat (or non fat) plant based and absolutely no meat or dairy or even fish.
Well after 8 months, I came down with Type 1 Diabetes! The carb load was so great that my pancrease crapped out on me. There are new studies now (google them) noting that a low fat diet equates to a high carb diet and that often ends up in Diabetes. My sugar levels were off the chart. I felt like suing Dr. Esselstyn and Campbell.
I quickly droped the diet and Bought Dr. Bernsteins book about Diabeties. His approach was more or less that of Atkins or the Edeas’ Protein Power.
My sugar levels were quickly brought down and in line with a “normal” non diabetic and what’s better – my cholesterol improved dramatically – go figure!
I will never go back to “low fat” plant based. Basically it is pretty simple: my body now burns fat (yes bacon fat) instead of sugar (from bread).
Interveiw Gary Taubes...please!
Please go do some very careful research on all of this because you are speaking out of complete ignorance on a plant based diet. TOTAL IGNORANCE....
http://www.babushkaskefir.com.au/historyofkefir.html
The above is something that radically contradicts China Study casein claims. People in the Caucasus mountains are known to be some of the healthiest, longest living on the planet. The problem is - their diet is heavily based on a dairy product (kefir), which according to the China Study is bound to kill you (prematurely). Go figure.
What will more than likely determine your future is in your genes, not so much in your diet. I have several nonagenarians in the family whose diet had always been heavy on dairy and meat and who happen to live long and healthy lives. And they are not an isolated example. Over the years, I have come across a number of families and individuals with similar histories and similar outcomes.
There is a little known self published book written by DeLamar Gibbons, MD, who practiced medicine in the Four Corners Region on the Navajo Reservation for many decades. The book is entitled, Their Secrets: Why the Navaho Indians Never Get Cancer. Gibbons insisted that he had reviewed the records of 25,000 admissions to the Monument Valley Hospital and several other hospitals as well in outlying communities for the decades in question and had not found a single instance of a Navajo who practiced traditional taboos ever getting cancer of any kind. Gibbons sought to explore the differences that might account for the negligible cancer rates in traditional living Navajos. He found that dairy products were avoided. But grassfed meat was eaten in abundance, especially lamb and mutton. And grassfed meat is very high in conjugated linoleoic acid (CLA), which inhibits development and growth of cancer. In any event, the Navajos in question had anything but a vegan or vegetarian diet.
It was assumed (once) that the developement of agriculture in human society was a positive development leading towards increased health/longevity in the population...that assumption has been proved false...the roaming hunter/gather lifestyle has been proven to be better. Homo S. once had to be extremely active in order to survive...we were lean, mean, fighting machines...now we pack ourselves into a suv, drive to Walmart, walk around with a shipping cart, fill it to the brim, pack it home, and pack it in...while we sit front side to a tv/computer.
Having said this, going out to my greenhouse for some fresh tomatoes, basil, and swiss chard....and it's time for me to go out for a long walk and pick up some wild pine nuts....and a brown trout or two...
Good luck my fellow primates!