Comparative effects of A1 versus A2 beta-casein on gastrointestinal measures: a blinded randomised cross-over pilot study
Background/objectives: At present, there is debate about the gastrointestinal effects of A1-type beta-casein protein in cows’ milk compared with the progenitor A2 type. In vitro and animal studies suggest that digestion of A1 but not A2 beta-casein affects gastrointestinal motility and inflammation...
Saved in:
Published in | European journal of clinical nutrition Vol. 68; no. 9; pp. 994 - 1000 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
London
Nature Publishing Group UK
01.09.2014
Nature Publishing Group |
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
ISSN | 0954-3007 1476-5640 1476-5640 |
DOI | 10.1038/ejcn.2014.127 |
Cover
Summary: | Background/objectives:
At present, there is debate about the gastrointestinal effects of A1-type beta-casein protein in cows’ milk compared with the progenitor A2 type.
In vitro
and animal studies suggest that digestion of A1 but not A2 beta-casein affects gastrointestinal motility and inflammation through the release of beta-casomorphin-7. We aimed to evaluate differences in gastrointestinal effects in a human adult population between milk containing A1 versus A2 beta-casein.
Subjects/methods:
Forty-one females and males were recruited into this double-blinded, randomised 8-week cross-over study. Participants underwent a 2-week dairy washout (rice milk replaced dairy), followed by 2 weeks of milk (750 ml/day) that contained beta-casein of either A1 or A2 type before undergoing a second washout followed by a final 2 weeks of the alternative A1 or A2 type milk.
Results:
The A1 beta-casein milk led to significantly higher stool consistency values (Bristol Stool Scale) compared with the A2 beta-casein milk. There was also a significant positive association between abdominal pain and stool consistency on the A1 diet (
r
=0.520,
P
=0.001), but not the A2 diet (
r
=−0.13,
P
=0.43). The difference between these two correlations (0.52 versus −0.13) was highly significant (
P
<0.001). Furthermore, some individuals may be susceptible to A1 beta-casein, as evidenced by higher faecal calprotectin values and associated intolerance measures.
Conclusions:
These preliminary results suggest differences in gastrointestinal responses in some adult humans consuming milk containing beta-casein of either the A1 or the A2 beta-casein type, but require confirmation in a larger study of participants with perceived intolerance to ordinary A1 beta-casein-containing milk. |
---|---|
Bibliography: | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 14 ObjectType-Article-2 ObjectType-Feature-3 ObjectType-Evidence Based Healthcare-1 ObjectType-Feature-1 content type line 23 ObjectType-Undefined-3 |
ISSN: | 0954-3007 1476-5640 1476-5640 |
DOI: | 10.1038/ejcn.2014.127 |