HOME
Diet and Colon Cancer Information
Introduction
There are many conditions in Western industrialised societies today that were unheard of, or at least very rare, just a century ago. The same conditions are still unheard of in primitive peoples who do not have the 'benefits' of our knowledge. There is a very good reason for this: They eat what Nature intended; we don't.
The diseases caused by our incorrect and unnatural diets are those featured on these pages.
Dietary causes:
Cereal fibre (bran)
Colon cancer
The use of bran (cereal fibre) for the treatment of colon cancer must be one of the most perverse aspects of 'healthy eating' as it appears that bran may actually be a major cause of colon cancer.
1: Origins of the recommendations
The belief that regular bowel movement is important for health is very ancient. In 1932 a 'New Health' movement was promoted in which people were urged to include plenty of roughage in their diets and it was hoped then that the prompt passing of stools after each substantial meal would reduce the incidence of intestinal disease.[i] Thirty years later Dr Dennis Burkitt, while working as a doctor in Africa, discovered that there was a much lower incidence of colon cancer among rural black Africans than among Europeans and Americans. He attributed this low incidence to their relatively crude diet.[ii] The theory was that fibre hastened the passage of the bowel contents thus allowing less time for cancer-inducing agents to form. This, of course, presupposed that food became carcinogenic in the gut and there was no evidence that it did. Neither was there any evidence that moving food through the intestine at a faster rate decreased the risk of cancer.
So the theory was unsubstantiated then by evidence and it was to be disproved in practice later when it was noticed that, when the rural Africans moved into towns and adopted a Western style low fibre diet, they continued to have a low incidence of colon cancer. This pattern has also continued with subsequent generations. It should also be noted that the rural Africans' lifestyle is quite different from that of the Western city dweller: their diet differs not just in its fibre content: their energy intake is lower and they eat less protein, fat and sugar. They are also not exposed to so many pollutants, toxins or mental stresses and any of these factors could be responsible for the difference in disease patterns. Other studies have also shown that there are Western communities (the Mormons of Utah, for example) who also enjoy a low incidence of colon cancer but eat a low fibre diet.[iii]
Nevertheless, these later findings were not publicised, Burkitt's theories caught the attention of the media who are always ready to exploit a good story. They expanded what was at best a very weak hypothesis into the treatment dogma of today which teaches that fibre is a panacea for all manner of illnesses.[iv]
Bran is quite inedible ? there is no known enzyme in the human body that can digest it. Nevertheless, backed by Burkitt's fibre hypothesis, commercial interests could now promote it as a valuable food. The late John Yudkin, Professor Emeritus of Nutrition and Dietetics at London University, pointed out that 'perhaps one reason for the wide acceptance of the suggestion that fibre is an important, if not essential, dietary component is that it had the enthusiastic support of commercial interests.' [v] He was writing in particular about the high-bran products, All Bran? and Branslim?.
Dr Hugh Trowell, Burkitt's partner and another strong advocate of dietary fibre, confirmed this in 1974, saying that 'a serious confusion of thought is produced by referring to the dietary fibre hypothesis as the bran hypothesis, for many Africans do not consume cereal or bran but remain almost free of constipation, irritable bowel syndrome and diverticular disease'.[vi]
Apart from its role in bones, calcium plays an important role in the processes that keep normal body cells normal. Imbalances in these processes can have such adverse consequences as acute disruption leading to rapid cell death, and start other processes which may lead to cancer. Several studies have shown that increases in dietary calcium may protect against cancer of the colon.[vii] Bran, however, is rich in phytic acid which binds with calcium in the gut and reduces its absorption. From this it seems logical that if calcium is not available because of the amount of bran in the diet, the risk of such cancer may be increased.
In an article on the subject in the Lancet, the editor wrote:
'Bran is on the defensive. There is little direct evidence that increasing the intake of fibre by itself has any beneficial effect on health. The notion that people should tolerate the unpalatability of bran and its unpleasant side-effects because it will prevent diseases . . . is founded on shaky evidence.'
References
[i]. Arbuthnot Lane W. New Health for Everyman. London: Geoffry Bles, 1932: 127.
[ii]. Burkitt DP, et al. Some geographical variations in disease patterns in East and Central Africa. E Afr Med J. 1963; 40: 1.
[iii]. Lyon JL, et al. Low cancer incidence and mortality in Utah. Cancer 1977; 39: 2608
[iv]. Smith J. Nutrition and The Media. In MR Turner, ed. Preventative Nutrition and Society. Academic Press, 1981
[v]. Yudkin J. Food for thought. BMJ 1980; 281: 1563.
[vi]. Trowell HC. Fibre and irritable bowels. BMJ. 1974; 3: 44.
[vii]. Wargovitch MJ, Baer AR. Basic and Clinical Investigations of Dietary Calcium in the Prevention of Colorectal Cancer. Prev Med 1989; 18: 672.
