Casein - Wow!

Nutrition
41

[quote]jwillow wrote:
HJLau75 wrote:
hmm, I’m a little less skeptical now from reading the excerpt from “The China Study”.

http://www.thechinastudy.com/PDFs/ChinaStudy_Excerpt.pdf

weird, just really weird that protein can promote cancer.

The excerpt did not actually say that protein by itself causes cancer. It said that in populations (both humans and rats) with high consumption of aflatoxin (“one of the most potent carcinogens ever discovered”), those who consumed the most protein (especially casein) were more likely to develop liver cancer, while low protein diets inhibited cancers caused by aflatoxin.

While this is indeed a startling discovery, I would point out that animal proteins didn’t cause the cancers. Aflatoxin did. Where does aflatoxin come from? Molds that grow on plant-based foods, specifically peanuts and corn. Ironic.[/quote]

Corn is the main ingredient in most animal feeds.

42

I didn’t bother to read the article but just to let you guys know wikipedia is not a reliable source of information…

43

Another reason to buy grass fed beef etc. Also, wikipedia can be a good source of information on more publicly relevant issues. Things with wide public appeal that are monitored closely are usually quite accurate. Casein Protein is not high on the list of public issues and therefore get almost no review by the admins at wikipedia.

44

[quote]jwillow wrote:
HJLau75 wrote:
hmm, I’m a little less skeptical now from reading the excerpt from “The China Study”.

http://www.thechinastudy.com/PDFs/ChinaStudy_Excerpt.pdf

weird, just really weird that protein can promote cancer.

The excerpt did not actually say that protein by itself causes cancer. It said that in populations (both humans and rats) with high consumption of aflatoxin (“one of the most potent carcinogens ever discovered”), those who consumed the most protein (especially casein) were more likely to develop liver cancer, while low protein diets inhibited cancers caused by aflatoxin.

While this is indeed a startling discovery, I would point out that animal proteins didn’t cause the cancers. Aflatoxin did. Where does aflatoxin come from? Molds that grow on plant-based foods, specifically peanuts and corn. Ironic.[/quote]

I didn’t say protein causes cancer. I said it promoted it.

They gave rats the aflatoxin and feed them different amount of proteins. In short all 20% of DV protein feed rats developed cancer and none 5% DV protein feed rats developed cancer.

It’s really weird. I mean it’s not going to stop me from taking my casein protein before bed. It’s just something to consider.

45

nice thread to show different opinions.
excess protien may be o.k. when you’re young, but what happens as years pass by? imho–

dairy
high protien
saturated fats
excessive oils (this is fat)
sugar–there are no healthy sugars,
all could be harmful. protien from fish(white) grains-beans are good, BUT it may not build the body one desires, that may be the trade off. vegetables rock and some fruit in moderation as it is—sugar!

the anabolic diet ???
and that turkey ham JB recommends in PN?? i don’t get it.
just my opinon.

46

Honestly there can be any conclusion reached that a scientist wants. Next we’re going to be hearing about milk intake correlating with number of people diagnosed with sexually transmited diseases.

Yes there are a lot of problems with today’s manufactured and heavily processed foods industry. The only real solution is to eat locally grown and organic foods. Hell I’ll even do you one better and say if you want to live to 150 then grow all your food on a fresh plot of land, raise your own animals, and that way you’ll know exactly what you’re getting.

47

Rats are a terrible model for human cancer, as they are vastly more prone to cancer than humans are.

Ask any pet rat owner: probably about 1/3 to 1/2 the females die of cancer, and a very substantial percentage of males too.

It’s a species not adapted by nature to a long life at all.

Even more so, many lab strains of rat were actually bred to be even more cancer-prone than the wild rat.

“Promoting” cancer in the presence of a carcinogen in a species highly prone to cancer says nothing about humans.

Also another reason to suspect this study is that, supposedly, none of the lower-protein diet rats died of cancer is pretty weird, considering the high rate among rats. Perhaps the number of rats was very low?

Or if the number is claimed to be high, if anything this sounds fraudulent (it’s not as if there is no fraudulent “research” on emotionally-charged topics, which for some reason anti-protein is among some people.) Anyway, it does not sound right to claim zero cancer rate for any meaningful number of rats. However that’s a side point.

It’s astonishing to me how much stuff gets written that completely ignores vast track record. It’s not as if casein is some rare protein hardly ever consumed by humans: cheese is mostly or almost entirely casein and milk is high in casein of course.

The lack of epidemiological evidence in man of causing cancer – the fellow of the “China study” article asserts it but without giving evidence – should be more than enough reason for any article author not to assert that there’s an issue here, let alone on the clearly-not-necessarily-applicable rat study.

Another thing that’s wrong about it is the claim that 8000 different things in the diet were allegedly proven, to statistical significance, to cause or promote disease. While I’m not a statistician I of course had to use it a fair bit in my graduate work, in fact a fair proportion of my research depended on the exact problem of the significance of only a few variables.

What happens is that when numerous things are present most of which are minor contributors (and clearly these claimed dietary influences cannot be high-percentage factors) supposedly isolating each to statistical significance just isn’t possible. A few, yes, but 8000? No way. Not to actual statistical significance according to proper use of the term.

48

You know the whole food study is a bunch of crap.
Remember when eggs were a killer…now the perfect food. Coffee was a killer because of the caffeine, now there are many benefits. Then there were the studies that tested decaffeinated coffee was bad for you.

Milk and dairy have always been out there…and I don’t believe a word of it. To say that no other country in the world drinks milk after 1 year of age or so is a lie. Many countries in Europe drink goats milk or sheep milk.

Gotta love those tree hug’n vegans…walk the plank…

49

Absolutely.

There are a number of scientific articles that state that the reason Europeans have a mutation in the gene responsible for lactase production, resulting in lactase production continuing basically for life instead of switching off early, is because of large survival benefit evolutionarily.

Without that benefit, the gene wouldn’t have become pretty much ubiquitous among Europeans.

Aside from the food-source value, another reason for its survival value is as a reliable source of safe water.

Nope, casein intake into adulthood has been part of man’s experience for a long time, proven by nature (by selection for this gene) to be a good thing for survival.

50

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
manly stuff[/quote]

I have noticed lately you have been prowling the forums after a seemingly long hiatus. I am grateful for this. Your early writings was one of the things that attracted me to this site.

51

Thank you for the kind words :slight_smile:

52

I’m really glad as well that Mr. Roberts took the time to respond to this. I agree with what he said, and I have to add my disappointment with the “evidence” that was posted.

Did some of you actually read the New Zealand Study? When I read it, I thought that the researchers were very clear about how little evidence there was pointing to any harmful effects.

Here is the quote about the studies done on autism, that the Wikipedia article so conveniently uses: “There have been several poorly-controlled clinical trials of casein-free/gluten-free diets in people with autism.
In general, the diets seem to reduce some of the autistic behaviors, but the bias inherent in the studies (especially lack of blinded assessment) may explain some of the findings.”

That is your idea of “concluding basically the same thing as the Wikipedia article”??

I’m not trying to bash the discussion, as I think the OP was merely bringing up an interesting topic for debate, and I like it, but it seems like all someone has to do is say, “hey this is evidence” and everyone goes, “oh ok, you’re right” without even reading what it says.

As far as I can tell, the only conclusion from the New Zealand study is, “there may be a need to do a whole lot more research on this” which is a far stretch from “stop buying Metabolic Drive and start buying whey”.

Also keep in mind how little sway epidemiological studies have in the scientific community. All this whole casein discussion has going for it is some epidemiological information about how high-protein diets exacerbate what seems to amount to poisoning by aflatoxin. Clinical trials are where significant scientific theories are developed, and this topic has very little to speak of in that regard.

To ybthere1, Ockham’s Razor basically states that the simplest answer is probably the right one, and I was merely stating that given the two choices, insulin-action seems to be a lot more probable explanation than some poorly researched theory about the opiate effects of casein.

If the statement wasn’t meant to be “verifiable” then why would you bring it up in a scientific discussion? Science, by definition is meant to be “verifiable.”

53

[quote]ybthere1 wrote:

What do you guys think???[/quote]

I think that wikipedia is a shitty place to get your nutrition information. Get your head out of your ass and read medical journals if you’re so worried about that stuff.

I’m usually more than happy to help, but wikipedia told me the sky was falling, so I have to go put up protective shielding over my house…

54

[quote]BusterBob wrote:
I’m really glad as well that Mr. Roberts took the time to respond to this. I agree with what he said, and I have to add my disappointment with the “evidence” that was posted.

Did some of you actually read the New Zealand Study? When I read it, I thought that the researchers were very clear about how little evidence there was pointing to any harmful effects.

Here is the quote about the studies done on autism, that the Wikipedia article so conveniently uses: “There have been several poorly-controlled clinical trials of casein-free/gluten-free diets in people with autism.
In general, the diets seem to reduce some of the autistic behaviors, but the bias inherent in the studies (especially lack of blinded assessment) may explain some of the findings.”

That is your idea of “concluding basically the same thing as the Wikipedia article”??

I’m not trying to bash the discussion, as I think the OP was merely bringing up an interesting topic for debate, and I like it, but it seems like all someone has to do is say, “hey this is evidence” and everyone goes, “oh ok, you’re right” without even reading what it says.

As far as I can tell, the only conclusion from the New Zealand study is, “there may be a need to do a whole lot more research on this” which is a far stretch from “stop buying Metabolic Drive and start buying whey”.

Also keep in mind how little sway epidemiological studies have in the scientific community. All this whole casein discussion has going for it is some epidemiological information about how high-protein diets exacerbate what seems to amount to poisoning by aflatoxin. Clinical trials are where significant scientific theories are developed, and this topic has very little to speak of in that regard.

To ybthere1, Ockham’s Razor basically states that the simplest answer is probably the right one, and I was merely stating that given the two choices, insulin-action seems to be a lot more probable explanation than some poorly researched theory about the opiate effects of casein.

If the statement wasn’t meant to be “verifiable” then why would you bring it up in a scientific discussion? Science, by definition is meant to be “verifiable.”[/quote]

Ok guy, let me spell it out for you.

I posted because I came across ANECDOTAL evidence that supported that there could be adverse consequences to consuming casein. Do you know what ANECDOTAL means? I wanted to hear the opinions of other people about something that hits home because I am sure that at leat 75% of the people on this site consume casein protein powder.

As far as the milk discussion: I know what Ockham’s Razor is. It seems to me that you diagnosing my wife with some form of insulin resistance from across the internet is pretty f’n ridiculous. Ockham’s Razor? How 'bout common sense?

By the way, this is a bodybuilding forum and if I throw out a frivilous sidebar about my wife, you will probably be the only person to take offense to it. Get real, dude.

55

[quote]hockechamp14 wrote:
ybthere1 wrote:

What do you guys think???

I think that wikipedia is a shitty place to get your nutrition information. Get your head out of your ass and read medical journals if you’re so worried about that stuff.

I’m usually more than happy to help, but wikipedia told me the sky was falling, so I have to go put up protective shielding over my house…[/quote]

You’re absolutely right. I should consult a pimply-faced, 14 year old kid who can’t get laid. Call me when your testicles drop sweetheart.

56

“Wikipedia is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world can write anything they want about any subject. So you know you are getting the best possible information”

57

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Rats are a terrible model for human cancer, as they are vastly more prone to cancer than humans are.

Ask any pet rat owner: probably about 1/3 to 1/2 the females die of cancer, and a very substantial percentage of males too.

It’s a species not adapted by nature to a long life at all.

Even more so, many lab strains of rat were actually bred to be even more cancer-prone than the wild rat.

“Promoting” cancer in the presence of a carcinogen in a species highly prone to cancer says nothing about humans.

Also another reason to suspect this study is that, supposedly, none of the lower-protein diet rats died of cancer is pretty weird, considering the high rate among rats. Perhaps the number of rats was very low?

Or if the number is claimed to be high, if anything this sounds fraudulent (it’s not as if there is no fraudulent “research” on emotionally-charged topics, which for some reason anti-protein is among some people.) Anyway, it does not sound right to claim zero cancer rate for any meaningful number of rats. However that’s a side point.

It’s astonishing to me how much stuff gets written that completely ignores vast track record. It’s not as if casein is some rare protein hardly ever consumed by humans: cheese is mostly or almost entirely casein and milk is high in casein of course.

The lack of epidemiological evidence in man of causing cancer – the fellow of the “China study” article asserts it but without giving evidence – should be more than enough reason for any article author not to assert that there’s an issue here, let alone on the clearly-not-necessarily-applicable rat study.

Another thing that’s wrong about it is the claim that 8000 different things in the diet were allegedly proven, to statistical significance, to cause or promote disease. While I’m not a statistician I of course had to use it a fair bit in my graduate work, in fact a fair proportion of my research depended on the exact problem of the significance of only a few variables.

What happens is that when numerous things are present most of which are minor contributors (and clearly these claimed dietary influences cannot be high-percentage factors) supposedly isolating each to statistical significance just isn’t possible. A few, yes, but 8000? No way. Not to actual statistical significance according to proper use of the term. [/quote]

Thanks for throwing in some extra information that some of us wouldn’t know to consider (Myself included).

I knew there must have been other variables that affected the research, just didn’t know what they were.

so it is possible that the research that was done was fake?

58

[quote]jwillow wrote:
The excerpt did not actually say that protein by itself causes cancer. It said that in populations (both humans and rats) with high consumption of aflatoxin (“one of the most potent carcinogens ever discovered”), those who consumed the most protein (especially casein) were more likely to develop liver cancer, while low protein diets inhibited cancers caused by aflatoxin.[/quote]

What he didn’t say, also, was what calories these people/rats were consuming. He talks about helping the malnourished in the Philippines, and how it was the rich kids getting the liver cancer. I’m sure the rich kids were eating more of everything, not just protein.

It is known that low-calorie diets can protect your health, and malnourished individuals don’t generally develop cancer (although they suffer from a large number of other illnesses promoted by their lack of proper nutrition); so how do we know it was the lack of protein, and not the low caloric intake, that protected the low-protein rats and kids?

59

One thing I wanted to mention since I did go and read a little here and there regarding this. It seems the casein in question, A1 beta-casein, is first of all not found in all dairy products (it depends on the breed of the cow).

Also a quick google revealed that all these claims were dismissed in a review published in 2005 in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, the article is named “The A2 milk case: a critical review”.

I’ll quote my favorite part of the abstract;

I read some of the study from new zealand, and I didn’t find it particularly convincing. The most viable claim against A1 beta-casein is that there are indications that it’s involved with diabetes. However a causal relationship has never been established, so in my mind there’s still a lot of doubt what exact factor in the western diet causes diabetes 1 to be more common than in the rest of the world.

60

[quote]steinnes wrote:
One thing I wanted to mention since I did go and read a little here and there regarding this. It seems the casein in question, A1 beta-casein, is first of all not found in all dairy products (it depends on the breed of the cow).

Also a quick google revealed that all these claims were dismissed in a review published in 2005 in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, the article is named “The A2 milk case: a critical review”.

I’ll quote my favorite part of the abstract;

The A1/A2 milk hypothesis was ingenious. If the scientific evidence had worked out it would have required huge adjustments in the world’s dairy industries. This review concludes, however, that there is no convincing or even probable evidence that the A1 beta-casein of cow milk has any adverse effect in humans.

I read some of the study from new zealand, and I didn’t find it particularly convincing. The most viable claim against A1 beta-casein is that there are indications that it’s involved with diabetes. However a causal relationship has never been established, so in my mind there’s still a lot of doubt what exact factor in the western diet causes diabetes 1 to be more common than in the rest of the world.
[/quote]

And everyone in the choir said…AMEN