You said animal proteins cause carcinogenesis, that's wrong. Saturated animal fat consumption is what is linked to cancer.
Cancer begins with a mutation in oncogenes/anti-oncogenes causing oncogenesis via uncontrolled, unregulated cell growth.
Angiogenesis refers to blood vessel formation to provide tumor growth, you are referring to tumor dissemination, they're 2 different things.
Excessive consumption of cured/smoked/salted fish is linked to nasopharyngeal carcinoma due to nitrosamines being the primary carcinogen in this case, so you're wrong.
As for broccoli being more effective than chemotherapy/radiotherapy is laughable.

Lol.
Where does the canonical chain of signaling occur in terms of all cellular processes? DNA.. what causes malfunctioning apoptotic machinery, cell growth, et cetera? Mutations in your DNA. Typically cancer won't start until several mutations have occured. That's why aging robustly augments cancer risk.. because our cellular processes aren't perfect, there's always going to be some amount of random DNA strand breaks or just general errors in DNA replication (that's just one aspect of why aging increases risk/incidence, this isn't my main point, thus I don't feel the need to go further).

What I'm saying is, you're right about what occurs with cancer.. but you have no indication of how that begins, which is DNA mutations. Why are things carcinogenic/mutagenic? They cause DNA damage and/or mutations directly.
The China Study is an egregious travesty of a scientific book. It's completely fallacious and the actual data doesn't back what's stated. Please refer to a peer reviewed article next time thx. Following, I'll lead by example, here's a recent one noting the poorer health from vegetarians: http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0088278&representation=PDF (and just one).

Broccoli life force/10

It's not wrong. Saturated animal fat consumption is also linked to cancer. Unfortunately a lot of MDs quote poor information on the relationship between nutrient deficiency and disease. Here's a brief snippet that points to a ton of additional research performed via solid methodology:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/85/6/1667.full

Of additional interest: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140327140059.htm
Not about protein ingestion but just about involvement of protein in cancer in general (mechanistic underpinnings)

I was not justreferring to tumor dissmenination, but also angiogenesis (re-read to pick up the point of misunderstanding). I am again not wrong about fish, but again you have missed the point. I was not specifically talking about cured/smoked/slated fish, and I agree with what you said about it. I am talking about fish, not processed fish. Although for the most pary I was talking about cooked fish.

The study on broccoli was actually a great study and it was one of the earliest studies that made me dig further into the relationship between veggie consumption and disease preventation and curing.



I'm not arguing against mutation of DNA; I'm suggesting that the causal process is also a more "macro" event; really we could describe it at the cellular level in a few ways.

I have gone through a lot of the anti-China Study literature but most of it remains unconvincing. It's pretty easy to poke holes in any study but the implications of the China Study are pretty clear.

It's fallacious to expect higher protein intakes to cause cancer or be mutagenic because there's no mechanism by which that could occur. The only singular nuance is growth-promotion. Unless chronic upregulation via ridiculous food consumption, both in amount and time eating, plus some other deleterious sequelae manifestion such as from obesity, there's literally no risk. What, IGF-1 prod augmentation is going to cause cancer now? That's asinine.. growth promotion itself will do nothing to increase cancer incidence. Growth promotion after serious DNA mutations have occurered and the cell begins to grow can cause more celeritious growth, sure. But there's no argument here and you aren't making your case. For this, I'll point to the distinction between tumor initiation vs tumor promotion.

And LOL. We're going to start citing sat fat intakes as cancer promoting now too? So we have protein and sat fats? Okay let's just follow your logic.. high CHO diets could also cause cancer, then, because insulin activates the same anabolic pathways as IGF, as well as the high propensity of advanced glycation end products to cause tissue damage. Unsaturated fats are highly susceptible to lipid peroxidation, causing free radical prod, damaging both DNA directly, associated telomeres, and tissue oxidation. So we can ergo say unsat fats can cause cancer too.. do you see what's wrong with this type of thinking? That's essentially saying they ALL cause cancer lol (which I guess, to an extent, via life in general I guess cancer is inevitable). Shit, even too much antioxidant intake could cause cancer via dirupting the normal antioxidant defenses prod by your body and disrupting normal ROS induced signaling.

As for your link here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140327140059.htm
I'm not sure.. but.. you do realize this has literally nothing to do with protein intakes right? lol. It's just talking about a key protein involved in cancer.. not ingesting protein. Proteins are exorbitantly ubiquitous and varied in our body lol. They perform most all functions, from movement to all enzymatic reactions. It's almost laughable you would argue something so vehemently without the fundamental knowledge to discern this one.

And no.. no you really can't describe cellular mechanisms of cancer in a few ways. You can describe it by the origins of DNA mutations of homeostatic processes (proto-oncogenes). Sure, you can then describe the cellular/molecular processes that lead to the cancer becoming polyphiloprogenitive, avoiding senescence and maintaining immortality, inducing angiogenesis, etc.

I realize what the link I cited was about, but I threw it in just because it's interesting and we were talking about protein.

The IGF-1 pathway is only one possible route, and I don't think we shoudl just overrule the idea that increased growth can lead to cancer initiation. Typically, of course not, but the whole idea is that cancer often develops in conditions of cell bombardment -- whether the mechanism is entirely external to the cells or whether it's related to how the cells are reproducing on their own. Moreover, protein synethsis toward anabolism alone is extremely complicated, and IGF-1 production is but one link in one chain of a rather complex web of cascades and signaling processes. I doubt more than handful of living people can off-hand name all of the proteins involved. A lot of what is known is just conjecture anyway. Interfere effects, switching, etc., are fairly well-described but the point I'm driving at is that this mass of intracellular processes, when conditioned by extra protein intake, surely is susceptible to anomaly. Back-up, blocking, and down the line, possibly issues with nuclei, are inevitable. Even if we're talking about normal conditions, something could go astray. Amp it all up, and something will give way ... even if it's due to a hormonal effect or some other meta-effect.

I don't think anyone will give you an exact description but the hypothesis makes sense (or it could something else going on), and more importantly, well-conducted studies suggest more than a correlation between increased protein consumption and increased cancer rate. So the question remains, what explains it?

The last bit of what you said about describing mechanisms of cancer causation is closer to what I was driving at. That is, ultimately we are looking at only a couple ways cancer develops, but it's useful to look at all the levels at which we can describe its occurence (all are causal, but not all would be considered direct causation). Yet laying out these various mechanisms and understanding them is of extreme value. For instance, one of the reasons why conventional medicine misses the boat so often when it comes to treatment is that when someone has cancer, ultimately it's a systemic disease (I don't mean cancer everywhere but that nutrient deficiencies, blood pathologies etc etc all play into the environment that enables cancer to stick); of course chemotherapy is somewhat targeted and somewhat systemic, and sometimes it works because it is so vastly systematic. However, sometimes it just has the wrong effect, or no (beneficial) effect. Getting into some of the extracellular and other mechanisms that drive/enable cancer would be a very fruitful avenue toward systematic descriptions.

Of course most of that could be avoided if people ate better, worked out, and lived stress-free lives

This post was edited by RewtheBrave on Sep 22 2014 02:40pm

I think the protein conjunction along with cancer synthesis accentuates the damage caused by the DME-C therefore causing harm to my brain trying to read all what you guys have written in this thread.