Loading…

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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:European journal of clinical nutrition 2014-09, Vol.68 (9), p.994-1000
Main Authors: Ho, S, Woodford, K, Kukuljan, S, Pal, S
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
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
ISSN:0954-3007
1476-5640
DOI:10.1038/ejcn.2014.127