While there are doubtless universal truths and phenomena that are
This tendency has also been an impediment to obtaining sensible and reliable information about nutrition and human health. The myth
that there is a single "good'' diet for everybody is alive and well in the halls of medical schools as well as among legions in the alternative diet counter-culture.When we completed our first experiments on raw fruit and vegetable diets and cancer in mice in 1976 with the finding that these diets suppressed cancer just as their advocates in the health food culture had reported, we were immediately surrounded by people who advocated this very low protein diet for pregnant and nursing mothers, infants, small children and virtually everybody including cancer victims. If it seemed good for one group of people it was "good,'' and therefore good for everybody.
I have a friend who was a world-class miler in the 1960s when the general belief was that a very high protein diet was good for everybody and that athletes all needed even more of the same. He blames this fad for his failure to be among the few men of his generation to break the four-minute mile. After spending his running years loading up on high protein, he later learned that high carbohydrate was better for runners and that too much protein inhibited performance.
A recent publication about nutrition and cancer is illustrative. "Suppression of squamous cell carcinoma in hairless mice by dietary nutrient variation'' by A. B. Robinson, A. Hunsberger, and F. C. Westall,
Mechanisms of Ageing and Development 76 pp 201-214 (1994) reports the effects of 38 different diets on cancer development in a total of 1,846 mice. The rate of onset and development of tumors in these mice varied over a 20-fold range as a function of diet alone. This result illustrates the importance of diet in the control of cancer.
The specific nature of the diets comprising this 20-fold range is, however, not in accordance with the "good'' diet myth. Figure 1 illustrates this with respect to one of the nutrients. (Figure 1 is taken from the MAD 1994 paper but was first published in Barron's September 3, p. 7 (1979 ) because of the self-destructive explosion that these experimental results initiated in Linus Pauling. The 1994 paper itself was published from abbreviated research summaries because the Linus Pauling Institute claims to have lost the 300 computer data tapes and 50 file drawers of research data that comprised the records of all research conducted at that Institute during the five-year period that included this work. As a result, completed and remarkable experiments on over 2,000 human subjects have never been published.) In experiments conducted over a four-year period, each of these 1,846 hairless mice was subjected to repeated quantitative exposure to ultraviolet light such that it developed skin cancer (squamous cell carcinoma). The development of this cancer was carefully recorded for each mouse. Included in the 38 diets were those comprising dose re-
sponse curves for vitamin C, vitamin E, and total protein along with 12 other diets of interest in human nutrition.
The gram/kilogram food values in Figure 1 are roughly equivalent to grams per day oral dose for a human adult. Notice that this cancer grew faster in the mice receiving human equivalent doses corresponding to 3 to 6 grams per day of vitamin C. The mean lethal dose of vitamin C for these mice is between 200 and 300 g/kg. As doses approached this lethal dose, the growth of cancer was suppressed. Figure 1 also illustrates two of the raw fruit and vegetable experiments in which cancer growth was suppressed. This raw fruit and vegetable diet is very low in protein. When vegetable protein is added, the cancer suppressive effect disappears. The authors summarize as follows:
"Cancer growth was most rapid at the human equivalent doses of 1-3 g of vitamin C, 150-300 mg (about 150-300 International Units) of vitamin E, and 80-170 g of protein. Cancer growth was accelerated by a multinutrient mixture typical of human 'megavitamin' supplements and by a rich mixture of seeds and nuts.
"Conversely, cancer growth was suppressed by near lethal doses of 100-200 g of vitamin C, by 200 g of sucrose [20% by weight of ordinary table sugar], by protein deprivation and protein overdoses, by a raw plant food diet so restrictive that [it] will not support long-term human life, and by large doses of butylated hydroxytoluene and glu-tathione.
"Thus a daily intake of ordinary supplements of vitamin C, vitamin E, and multivitamins, a 'well balanced' amount of fruits, vegetables, seeds, and nuts, and minimal amounts of candy and other sweets - a diet considered healthy for most Americans - would appear to be a harmful diet for a cancer victim; whereas insufficient protein and fat, high 'empty' calories from sucrose, and near lethal amounts of vitamin C would appear good for a cancer victim. In addition, it has long been known that rat lifespan is maximized by a nutrient-rich diet early in life followed by nutrient restriction later in life.
"Perhaps nutrition during cancer therapy should be viewed as the provision of fuel for a race between rapidly growing young tissues and mature older tissues where nutrient restriction or malnutrition may favor the older tissues. The prevailing attitude that 'good' nutrition is the same for everyone may be especially dangerous for cancer victims.'' Before anyone hurries to dispose of his vitamin pills, however, he should realize that these experiments were carried out in mice which make their own vitamin C. The oral doses may have suppressed the ordinarily produced amounts in the mice. Moreover, vitamin C oxidation products are very destructive of macromolecules such as proteins and nucleic acids and may, therefore, participate in a sort of biochemical hormesis effect.
Most importantly, it is possible that diets like those which enhanced growth of cancer in these mice may also lower the probability of contracting cancer by strengthening biochemical defense mechanisms.
It may be that the overall death of humans from cancer would be minimized by rich dietary supplementation with nutrients currently considered "good'' until cancer is initiated and then by sharp restriction of these nutrients during cancer therapy. In this case, markedly better techniques for cancer detection before symptoms are evident would be of even greater importance.
The squamous cell carcinoma in these mice was pathologically the same as human squamous cell carcinoma and was induced in the same way that humans usually acquire it - overexposure to UV light. That its rate of growth could be varied over a 20-fold range by diet alone using diets that are common in human nutrition and easily adopted by any cancer victim is remarkable. Mice are not the same as men, but, in the absence of similar data on men, they provide our best guess.
I am reminded of a surgeon who told me of a patient he examined who had inoperable cancer in his throat and about two months to live. After leaving the surgeon's office, this patient adopted a raw plant food diet so restrictive of nutrients that it will not support human life. Six months later the patient was back to see the surgeon. Three things were remarkable. He was not dead; he had no trace of cancer; and he looked as if he had been in Auschwitz - almost dead of malnutrition. With ordinary food, he recovered his weight, and the cancer never recurred.
|
|
Vol. 22, No. 5
Newsletter: Access to Energy Newsletter Archive Volume: Issues Issue/No.: Vol. 22, No. 5 Date: January 01, 1995 03:10 PM Title: Information
Copyright © 2004 - Access to Energy Newsletter Archive
|