Posted on 03/23/2014 11:25:02 AM PDT by RoosterRedux
The FDA prohibits trials in humans.
The FDA is as great a cancer on society as cancer itself.
Someone emailed about somatic vs. metabolic theory.
Bad news from the TCGA:
http://robbwolf.com/2013/09/19/origin-cancer/
Seyfried’s text “Cancer as a Metabolic Disease” (not cheap):
http://www.bc.edu/schools/cas/biology/facadmin/seyfried.html
A blog by an MD exploring keto diets generally.
http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/war-cancer
http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/way-exploit-metabolic-quirk-cancer
Someone else asked about specific advice on prostate cancer.
Seyfried’s page has a link for further info on using R-KD (restricted calorie ketogenic diet) as therapy. I might add that, even though I’ve read his book, I tend to think that R-KD isn’t the whole answer, nor does Seyfried describe it as a “cure”.
On prostate, I advise being very skeptical of PSA results. Our family has already had experience with false positives. Biopsy is the most reliable. Kallikrein testing looks promising and may be coming to market.
This is all more than I know about it, having stumbled into it while exploring diet & health.
Understood.
nice thought.
A miracle medicine that never sees the light of day because the stupid mouse died.
I just got around to reading a study published a few years ago about the usefulness of PSA screening. Basically doing the surgery did not significantly improve mortality or morbidity.
As far as dietary treatment of solid tumor cancer, I’ve seen and known many people over the years that have tried holistic and or chemo, basically if the surgeon can’t cut it out, the prognosis isn’t good. Let me modify that, I have seen a number of women that had positive nodes survive long term after mastectomy and radiation with the radiation probably killing some residual cancer in the lymph nodes.
As far as metabolically starving a cancer cell, I think brain cells are probably more sensitive than cancer cells to low blood sugar so I’m not sure you could eradicate the cancer without gorking yourself in the process.
I’m about two years out from cancer myself. I went with radical surgery and no chemo. Chemo would have reduced my chance of recurrence by about 20% but absolute risk reduction was really about 2% and my chances of permanent nerve damage and or death from treatment was probably higher than that with a 100% risk of being miserable for 6-9 months. So far so good.
> ... brain cells are probably more sensitive than
> cancer cells to low blood sugar so I’m not sure
> you could eradicate the cancer without gorking
> yourself in the process.
It is a common and pervasive myth that brain cells run only on glucose. They run on it only because 99% of current populations are on full-time glycemic diets, with the blood glucose being metabolized from carbs primarily, if not actually ingested as glucose (table sugar is 50% glucose).
Humans are capable of an alternate metabolism (nutritional ketosis, NK) in which most cells run on fat, and brain cells run on ketone bodies metabolized from fat. Some isolated human cultures (Inuit, Masai) live in NK most of the time. Many individuals elsewhere have chosen to.
I eat few enough carbs that I probably am at least part-time ketotic, but haven’t bothered to invest in the measuring equipment. Anyone on a low carb diet that is less than 50 grams net carbs per day is part-time keto.
Many chosing NK claim that their brains run better on ketones than glucose. NK should not be confused with DKA (diabetic ketoacidosis) or starvation ketosis. The eatingacademy site linked earlier has extensive articles about NK, by an MD who has been experimenting on himself with extensive instrumentation.
It might shock the readers of this forum to learn that your government is giving you bad advice :).
Disease trends and healthcare costs are rocketing out of control. People aren’t fat and sick because they aren’t following the official advice, but because they are.
The US advocates a full time high-glycemic diet. The USDA’s MyPlate is 60% of calories from carbs, primarily from grains (which means primarily from wheat, which has massive issues beyond being as glycemic as many sugars). Every other agency defers to MyPlate on diet.
The ideal human macronutrient balance is not yet known, but it appears that carbs need to be more like 5-10% of calories, not 60%.
Sugar feeds cancer. Oncologists use this fact to image it on x-ray, but not to treat it.
Why?
Many pundits will flat out claim that sugar doesn’t just feed cancer, it often causes it. The cancer stats for NK cultures tend to support that, as does a recent paper reported on here:
http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/2013/06/chowdhury-and-crabtree-play-with.html
!
Did you forget the /s?
You do realize that doctors, researchers and pharmaceutical employees get cancer too?
I’m familiar with ketone metabolism. Brains can sustain some of its function on ketone but the body continues to produce glucose even if you consume none. It either converts dietary proteins or starts catabolizing muscle.
Cutting out carbs decreases insulin and other cell growth stimulators, that may explain the relationship between carbs and cancer.
This is a ping list for cancer survivors and caregivers to share information. If you would like your name added to or removed from this ping list, please tell us in the comments section at this link (click here). (For the most updated list of names, click on the same link and scroll to the end of the comments.)
> Brains can sustain some of its function on ketone ...
Humans can live on zero carbs. This has been known since the 1920s. People are now choosing to live in deep NK, and have been, continuously, for years, with no impairment in brain function.
> ... but the body continues to produce glucose even if
> you consume none. It either converts dietary proteins
> or starts catabolizing muscle.
True. Some BG is always there. We can even metabolize it from fat, but at a net energy deficit I imagine.
This residual BG (and the glutamine) is presumably why some R-KD cancer researchers are conjecturing exogenous ketones (BHB and/or AcAc consumed as food) to get ketone levels up to stress the tumors.
> Cutting out carbs decreases insulin and other cell
> growth stimulators, that may explain the relationship
> between carbs and cancer.
I understand that diabetics on metaformin get less cancer. Some folks with cancer are even asking if it might be worthwhile to take metaformin even though they aren’t diagnosed T2D. They may be missing the larger picture.
Of course it isn’t. It doesn’t sound African anyway. The linguistics of west African languages involve high sound usage of B, M and Z. East and north African languages are closely related to Arabic, which also occurs in north Africa. Cytolysis is made of two Greek words. Not even close to any african sounds…
The prefix in that word can also be a suffis suffix, but always refers to the same subject: a cell, or a part of a cell.
Think adipoCYTE (fat cell), erythroCYTE (red blood cell), CYTOplasm (protoplasm inside a cell)...
It does.
Sugar causes inflamation in humans. This has been known for decades, and the information is free.
To expound, inflammation is deadly. It’s not a just a mild swelling. I suggest that you research and read to expand your knowledge base so that you understand what occurs after the consumtion of sugar, directly and indirectly.
Any disease with the suffix “itis” is an inflammation of a tissue that can be resolved by eliminating sugar, which includes grains (if it’s a seed that grows on a grass, it’s a grain).
Here are 101 diseases or disorders that involve the inflammation of specific tissue:
adenitis
antiarthritis
appendicitis
arteritis
arthritis
bronchitis
bursitis
carditis
cellulitis
cervicitis
cholecystitis
colitis
colpitis
conjunctivitis
coxitis
cystitis
dermatitis
diverticulitis
encephalitis
encephalomyelitis
encephalomyocarditis
endocarditis
endometritis
enteritis
enterocolitis
epididymitis
fibrositis
folliculitis
gastritis
gastroenteritis
gingivitis
glomerulonephritis
glossitis
hepatitis
ileitis
iritis
keratitis
keratoconjunctivitis
laminitis
laryngitis
lymphadenitis
mammitis
mastitis
mastoiditis
meningitis
meningoencephalitis
mephitis
metritis
mitis
myelitis
myocarditis
myositis
nephritis
neuritis
orchitis
osteitis
osteoarthritis
osteomyelitis
otitis
ouistitis
ovaritis
pancreatitis
parotitis
pericarditis
periostitis
peritonitis
pharyngitis
phlebitis
pneumonitis
poliomyelitis
polyneuritis
prostatitis
pyelitis
pyelonephritis
rachitis
retinitis
rhinitis
salpingitis
sinusitis
spondylitis
stomatitis
synovitis
tendinitis
tendonitis
tenosynovitis
thelitis
thrombophlebitis
thyroiditis
titis
tonsillitis
tracheitis
urethritis
uveitis
uvulitis
vaginitis
valvulitis
vasculitis
vulvitis
vulvovaginitis
wapitis
zitis
They used the term “explode” for the people who don’t comprehend “apoptosis,” which is programmed cell death (yes, our cells run on a program of sorts). The program can run amok, when a sick cell is allowed to replicate. This means that it is re-programmed. If the immune system catches up, then the cell or cells are put back into check and can live out their normal term, or (most often) be marked (by a protein or some type of bio marker that is used between cells in the body) for early termination.
The cells are not exploding. The colloquial term is used to simplify the article for the layperson. The cells undergo apoptosis, or programed cell death. This is a natural process in the body. After a cell is marked for termination, other cells may carry them to points of extcretion through the vascular system.
As you read this, millions of your cells are dying. Don’t panic—you won’t miss them. Most of them are either superfluous or potentially harmful, so you’re better off without them. In fact, your health depends on the judicious use of a certain kind of cell death - or apoptosis.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.