Low carb diet fights cancer

x-no-archive: yes

http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...662484,00.html


"To the two researchers in Wurzburg, the theoretical debate about what
is now known as the Warburg effect — whether it is the primary cause of
cancer or a mere metabolic side effect — is irrelevant. What they
believe is that it can be therapeutically exploited. The theory is
simple: If most aggressive cancers rely on the fermentation of sugar for
growing and dividing, then take away the sugar and they should stop
spreading. Meanwhile, normal body and brain cells should be able to
handle the sugar starvation; they can switch to generating energy from
fatty molecules called ketone bodies — the body's main source of energy
on a fat-rich diet — an ability that some or most fast-growing and
invasive cancers seem to lack."


Susan

"Susan" <nevermind@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:5lb3niF792s9U1@mid.individual.net...
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...662484,00.html
>
>
> "To the two researchers in Wurzburg, the theoretical debate about what is
> now known as the Warburg effect — whether it is the primary cause of
> cancer or a mere metabolic side effect — is irrelevant. What they believe
> is that it can be therapeutically exploited. The theory is simple: If most
> aggressive cancers rely on the fermentation of sugar for growing and
> dividing, then take away the sugar and they should stop spreading.
> Meanwhile, normal body and brain cells should be able to handle the sugar
> starvation; they can switch to generating energy from fatty molecules
> called ketone bodies — the body's main source of energy on a fat-rich
> diet — an ability that some or most fast-growing and invasive cancers seem
> to lack."
>
>
> Susan

Hi Susan,

Another cool find. You seem to come up with so much that captures my
interest it's amazing. I don't always agree with some of your conclusions,
but I'm always learning. Thank You.

Peter

BigBird

x-no-archive: yes

Peter G. (Bigbird) wrote:
> "Susan" <nevermind@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:5lb3niF792s9U1@mid.individual.net...
>
>>x-no-archive: yes
>>
>>http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...662484,00.html
>>
>>
>>"To the two researchers in Wurzburg, the theoretical debate about what is
>>now known as the Warburg effect — whether it is the primary cause of
>>cancer or a mere metabolic side effect — is irrelevant. What they believe
>>is that it can be therapeutically exploited. The theory is simple: If most
>>aggressive cancers rely on the fermentation of sugar for growing and
>>dividing, then take away the sugar and they should stop spreading.
>>Meanwhile, normal body and brain cells should be able to handle the sugar
>>starvation; they can switch to generating energy from fatty molecules
>>called ketone bodies — the body's main source of energy on a fat-rich
>>diet — an ability that some or most fast-growing and invasive cancers seem
>>to lack."
>>
>>
>>Susan
>
>
> Hi Susan,
>
> Another cool find. You seem to come up with so much that captures my
> interest it's amazing. I don't always agree with some of your conclusions,
> but I'm always learning. Thank You.
>
> Peter
>
> BigBird
>

Ya know, I don't care if folks agree or not, as long as they're thinking
about stuff.

I lifted this "find" straight out of someone else's post on
alt.support.diet.low-carb


Susan

Susan <nevermind@nomail.com> wrote in part:

>x-no-archive: yes
>
>http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...662484,00.html
>
>
>"To the two researchers in Wurzburg, the theoretical debate about what
>is now known as the Warburg effect — whether it is the primary cause of
>cancer or a mere metabolic side effect — is irrelevant. What they
>believe is that it can be therapeutically exploited. The theory is
>simple: If most aggressive cancers rely on the fermentation of sugar for
>growing and dividing, then take away the sugar and they should stop
>spreading. Meanwhile, normal body and brain cells should be able to
>handle the sugar starvation; they can switch to generating energy from
>fatty molecules called ketone bodies — the body's main source of energy
>on a fat-rich diet — an ability that some or most fast-growing and
>invasive cancers seem to lack."

Ummmmm... I've seen this discussed before in terms of the mitochondrial
changes in most cancer cells.

But it seems like we are really talking about two distinct links. There is
the argument that a very low-carb diet would lower serum glucose. And there
is the argument that a very low serum glucose could starve some cancers.

How low does serum glucose fall under a ketogenic diet?

Or am I misunderstanding this?
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA

x-no-archive: yes

Jim Chinnis wrote:
> Susan <nevermind@nomail.com> wrote in part:
>
>
>>x-no-archive: yes
>>
>>http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...662484,00.html
>>
>>
>>"To the two researchers in Wurzburg, the theoretical debate about what
>>is now known as the Warburg effect — whether it is the primary cause of
>>cancer or a mere metabolic side effect — is irrelevant. What they
>>believe is that it can be therapeutically exploited. The theory is
>>simple: If most aggressive cancers rely on the fermentation of sugar for
>>growing and dividing, then take away the sugar and they should stop
>>spreading. Meanwhile, normal body and brain cells should be able to
>>handle the sugar starvation; they can switch to generating energy from
>>fatty molecules called ketone bodies — the body's main source of energy
>>on a fat-rich diet — an ability that some or most fast-growing and
>>invasive cancers seem to lack."
>
>
> Ummmmm... I've seen this discussed before in terms of the mitochondrial
> changes in most cancer cells.
>
> But it seems like we are really talking about two distinct links. There is
> the argument that a very low-carb diet would lower serum glucose. And there
> is the argument that a very low serum glucose could starve some cancers.
>
> How low does serum glucose fall under a ketogenic diet?
>
> Or am I misunderstanding this?
> --


I'm not sure you're misunderstanding, but I think it may not have to do
with lowering bg to an extreme so much as lowering it so that there's no
excess to fuel bad growth. For example, low carbing completely rid me
of oral thrush and other yeast infection I'd had for years by lowering
my bg, but not into anything but a normal range.

Maybe by keeping bg just at the healthy lowest level, there's no excess
to fuel bad cell growth, and also there's less IGF1 floating around
stimulating undifferentiated cell growths?

Susan

Susan <nevermind@nomail.com> wrote in part:

>x-no-archive: yes
>
>Jim Chinnis wrote:
>> Susan <nevermind@nomail.com> wrote in part:
>>
>>
>>>x-no-archive: yes
>>>
>>>http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...662484,00.html
>>>
>>>
>>>"To the two researchers in Wurzburg, the theoretical debate about what
>>>is now known as the Warburg effect — whether it is the primary cause of
>>>cancer or a mere metabolic side effect — is irrelevant. What they
>>>believe is that it can be therapeutically exploited. The theory is
>>>simple: If most aggressive cancers rely on the fermentation of sugar for
>>>growing and dividing, then take away the sugar and they should stop
>>>spreading. Meanwhile, normal body and brain cells should be able to
>>>handle the sugar starvation; they can switch to generating energy from
>>>fatty molecules called ketone bodies — the body's main source of energy
>>>on a fat-rich diet — an ability that some or most fast-growing and
>>>invasive cancers seem to lack."
>>
>>
>> Ummmmm... I've seen this discussed before in terms of the mitochondrial
>> changes in most cancer cells.
>>
>> But it seems like we are really talking about two distinct links. There is
>> the argument that a very low-carb diet would lower serum glucose. And there
>> is the argument that a very low serum glucose could starve some cancers.
>>
>> How low does serum glucose fall under a ketogenic diet?
>>
>> Or am I misunderstanding this?
>> --
>
>
>I'm not sure you're misunderstanding, but I think it may not have to do
>with lowering bg to an extreme so much as lowering it so that there's no
>excess to fuel bad growth. For example, low carbing completely rid me
>of oral thrush and other yeast infection I'd had for years by lowering
>my bg, but not into anything but a normal range.
>
>Maybe by keeping bg just at the healthy lowest level, there's no excess
>to fuel bad cell growth, and also there's less IGF1 floating around
>stimulating undifferentiated cell growths?
>
>Susan

Yes, that would seem to be the only reasonable interpretation.

But most people aren't diabetic and so have blood glucose tightly controlled
anyway. One of the early successes of the "Marburg diet" was with treatment
of two children with blastomas. Were they diabetic? I assume not. So I'd
assume the diet didn't actually work by reducing blood glucose. Only problem
is...I can't think of what else would fit the reports.

Color me confused.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA

x-no-archive: yes

Jim Chinnis wrote:

> Yes, that would seem to be the only reasonable interpretation.
>
> But most people aren't diabetic and so have blood glucose tightly controlled
> anyway. One of the early successes of the "Marburg diet" was with treatment
> of two children with blastomas. Were they diabetic? I assume not. So I'd
> assume the diet didn't actually work by reducing blood glucose. Only problem
> is...I can't think of what else would fit the reports.
>
> Color me confused.

I think the article overlooked or simplified some stuff. Ignored the
impact of insulin on growth hormone and on elevated IGF1 which promotes
cancer growth, etc.

Still, if you produce only the minimum amount of glucose that the body
needs for normal processes, I guess it means there's no excess to fuel
extra cell growth, including malignancies.

Susan

Susan wrote:
> http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...662484,00.html

I suppose you know I lean towards low carb, but this particular
quote doesn't do anything for me.

> "... theoretical debate ... whether ... believe ... theory ...
> If .... they should ... should be ... seem ...."

Seems like a heck of a lot of speculation in such a small paragraph.

--
Wes Groleau

Words of the Wild Wes(t) = http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW

"Susan" <nevermind@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:5lbf9aF7edgfU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> Still, if you produce only the minimum amount of glucose that the body
> needs for normal processes, I guess it means there's no excess to fuel
> extra cell growth, including malignancies.
>
> Susan

Oh damn.
I thought that at least I couldn't be blamed for my cancer.
Now maybe I can.
nertz.
bj

Susan <nevermind@nomail.com> wrote in part:

>x-no-archive: yes
>
>Jim Chinnis wrote:
>
>> Yes, that would seem to be the only reasonable interpretation.
>>
>> But most people aren't diabetic and so have blood glucose tightly controlled
>> anyway. One of the early successes of the "Marburg diet" was with treatment
>> of two children with blastomas. Were they diabetic? I assume not. So I'd
>> assume the diet didn't actually work by reducing blood glucose. Only problem
>> is...I can't think of what else would fit the reports.
>>
>> Color me confused.
>
>I think the article overlooked or simplified some stuff. Ignored the
>impact of insulin on growth hormone and on elevated IGF1 which promotes
>cancer growth, etc.
>
>Still, if you produce only the minimum amount of glucose that the body
>needs for normal processes, I guess it means there's no excess to fuel
>extra cell growth, including malignancies.
>
>Susan

Does anyone here know what the effect of a ketogenic diet is on blood
glucose levels (in a non-diabetic)?
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA

Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote in part:

>Susan wrote:
>> http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...662484,00.html
>
>I suppose you know I lean towards low carb, but this particular
>quote doesn't do anything for me.
>
>> "... theoretical debate ... whether ... believe ... theory ...
>> If .... they should ... should be ... seem ...."
>
>Seems like a heck of a lot of speculation in such a small paragraph.

There's some very strong and detailed evidence that links the way cancers
grow without apoptosis and a change in their mitochondria that mean they
cannot use ketone bodies and must use glucose.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA

Jim Chinnis <jchinnis@spamalum.mit.edu> wrote:
> Susan <nevermind@nomail.com> wrote in part:

>>Jim Chinnis wrote:
>>> Susan <nevermind@nomail.com> wrote in part:

>>>>http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...662484,00.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"To the two researchers in Wurzburg, the theoretical debate about what
>>>>is now known as the Warburg effect -- whether it is the primary cause of
>>>>cancer or a mere metabolic side effect -- is irrelevant. What they
>>>>believe is that it can be therapeutically exploited. The theory is
>>>>simple: If most aggressive cancers rely on the fermentation of sugar for
>>>>growing and dividing, then take away the sugar and they should stop
>>>>spreading. Meanwhile, normal body and brain cells should be able to
>>>>handle the sugar starvation; they can switch to generating energy from
>>>>fatty molecules called ketone bodies -- the body's main source of energy
>>>>on a fat-rich diet -- an ability that some or most fast-growing and
>>>>invasive cancers seem to lack."
>>>
>>>
>>> Ummmmm... I've seen this discussed before in terms of the mitochondrial
>>> changes in most cancer cells.
>>>
>>> But it seems like we are really talking about two distinct links. There is
>>> the argument that a very low-carb diet would lower serum glucose. And there
>>> is the argument that a very low serum glucose could starve some cancers.
>>>
>>> How low does serum glucose fall under a ketogenic diet?
>>>
>>> Or am I misunderstanding this?
>>> --
>>
>>
>>I'm not sure you're misunderstanding, but I think it may not have to do
>>with lowering bg to an extreme so much as lowering it so that there's no
>>excess to fuel bad growth. For example, low carbing completely rid me
>>of oral thrush and other yeast infection I'd had for years by lowering
>>my bg, but not into anything but a normal range.
>>
>>Maybe by keeping bg just at the healthy lowest level, there's no excess
>>to fuel bad cell growth, and also there's less IGF1 floating around
>>stimulating undifferentiated cell growths?
>>
>>Susan

> Yes, that would seem to be the only reasonable interpretation.

> But most people aren't diabetic and so have blood glucose tightly controlled
> anyway. One of the early successes of the "Marburg diet" was with treatment
> of two children with blastomas. Were they diabetic? I assume not. So I'd
> assume the diet didn't actually work by reducing blood glucose. Only problem
> is...I can't think of what else would fit the reports.

> Color me confused.

Note the mention in the report of Seyfried's finding that increasing
the fats in a mouse diet increased the time they survived a
cancer. Then reducing carbs increased survival time more. So there's
clearly something here going on with fat metabolism quite apart from
carbs.

--
Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Jim Chinnis <jchinnis@spamalum.mit.edu> wrote:
> Susan <nevermind@nomail.com> wrote in part:

>>Jim Chinnis wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, that would seem to be the only reasonable interpretation.
>>>
>>> But most people aren't diabetic and so have blood glucose tightly controlled
>>> anyway. One of the early successes of the "Marburg diet" was with treatment
>>> of two children with blastomas. Were they diabetic? I assume not. So I'd
>>> assume the diet didn't actually work by reducing blood glucose. Only problem
>>> is...I can't think of what else would fit the reports.
>>>
>>> Color me confused.
>>
>>I think the article overlooked or simplified some stuff. Ignored the
>>impact of insulin on growth hormone and on elevated IGF1 which promotes
>>cancer growth, etc.
>>
>>Still, if you produce only the minimum amount of glucose that the body
>>needs for normal processes, I guess it means there's no excess to fuel
>>extra cell growth, including malignancies.
>>
>>Susan

> Does anyone here know what the effect of a ketogenic diet is on blood
> glucose levels (in a non-diabetic)?

I can't point to anything specific, but sniffing the research winds
has given me the vague impression that the mildly ketogenic state of
burning one's fat reserves is probably a beneficial state to be in,
quite apart from BG effects, especially if you've spent many years in
the opposite state of getting very slowly fatter. That's why I'm
planning to spend years very slowly losing weight. It's an experiment.

One beneficial result is already clear: my trousers are too big :-)

Note that we're developing little seedling cancers all the time. It's
a natural condition. But we don't "get" cancer because we have
efficient cancer seedling weeding machinery. What we regard as
"getting" cancer is when one of these tiny seedlings manages to
survive long enough to grow strong roots.

I wonder if the same general physiological conditions which encourage
fat deposition (e.g. the combination of normal blood sugars with high
insulin levels) are those which encourage the sprouting of cancer
seedlings? I wonder if the general physiological conditions of weight
loss help the cancer seedling weeding process? If so, I wonder if an
overlooked medical problem is not that we eat too much and get fat,
because we do seem to be designed to do that in order to have reserves
for times of scarcity, but simply that we've dropped the times of
scarcity from our lifestyle, so we go on getting fatter for years and
years? That might be a condition which allows some cancer "seedlings"
to live long enough to develop roots, just as it seems to be a
condition which eventually leads in some of us to the complex
collection of progressive malfunctions which finally ends up as T2
diabetes.

--
Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

x-no-archive: yes

Jim Chinnis wrote:

> Does anyone here know what the effect of a ketogenic diet is on blood
> glucose levels (in a non-diabetic)?
> --


I don't have time to search my archives right now, but I think you could
be barking up the wrong tree; it may not be serum levels, but
bioavailability that's key.

If I had to guess, I think it would flatten out the curves.

Susan

Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in part:

>Jim Chinnis <jchinnis@spamalum.mit.edu> wrote:
>> Susan <nevermind@nomail.com> wrote in part:
>
>>>Jim Chinnis wrote:
>>>> Susan <nevermind@nomail.com> wrote in part:
>
>>>>>http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...662484,00.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"To the two researchers in Wurzburg, the theoretical debate about what
>>>>>is now known as the Warburg effect -- whether it is the primary cause of
>>>>>cancer or a mere metabolic side effect -- is irrelevant. What they
>>>>>believe is that it can be therapeutically exploited. The theory is
>>>>>simple: If most aggressive cancers rely on the fermentation of sugar for
>>>>>growing and dividing, then take away the sugar and they should stop
>>>>>spreading. Meanwhile, normal body and brain cells should be able to
>>>>>handle the sugar starvation; they can switch to generating energy from
>>>>>fatty molecules called ketone bodies -- the body's main source of energy
>>>>>on a fat-rich diet -- an ability that some or most fast-growing and
>>>>>invasive cancers seem to lack."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ummmmm... I've seen this discussed before in terms of the mitochondrial
>>>> changes in most cancer cells.
>>>>
>>>> But it seems like we are really talking about two distinct links. There is
>>>> the argument that a very low-carb diet would lower serum glucose. And there
>>>> is the argument that a very low serum glucose could starve some cancers.
>>>>
>>>> How low does serum glucose fall under a ketogenic diet?
>>>>
>>>> Or am I misunderstanding this?
>>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>>I'm not sure you're misunderstanding, but I think it may not have to do
>>>with lowering bg to an extreme so much as lowering it so that there's no
>>>excess to fuel bad growth. For example, low carbing completely rid me
>>>of oral thrush and other yeast infection I'd had for years by lowering
>>>my bg, but not into anything but a normal range.
>>>
>>>Maybe by keeping bg just at the healthy lowest level, there's no excess
>>>to fuel bad cell growth, and also there's less IGF1 floating around
>>>stimulating undifferentiated cell growths?
>>>
>>>Susan
>
>> Yes, that would seem to be the only reasonable interpretation.
>
>> But most people aren't diabetic and so have blood glucose tightly controlled
>> anyway. One of the early successes of the "Marburg diet" was with treatment
>> of two children with blastomas. Were they diabetic? I assume not. So I'd
>> assume the diet didn't actually work by reducing blood glucose. Only problem
>> is...I can't think of what else would fit the reports.
>
>> Color me confused.
>
>Note the mention in the report of Seyfried's finding that increasing
>the fats in a mouse diet increased the time they survived a
>cancer. Then reducing carbs increased survival time more. So there's
>clearly something here going on with fat metabolism quite apart from
>carbs.

Nothing is ever simple, is it? If Seyfried increased fats without lowering
carbs (how much of that can you really do?), he decreased protein... And,
too, increasing fats might depress bg spikes from iso-caloric meals.

There's a lot I don't understand in this.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA

Susan <nevermind@nomail.com> wrote in part:

>x-no-archive: yes
>
>Jim Chinnis wrote:
>
>> Does anyone here know what the effect of a ketogenic diet is on blood
>> glucose levels (in a non-diabetic)?
>> --
>
>
>I don't have time to search my archives right now, but I think you could
>be barking up the wrong tree; it may not be serum levels, but
>bioavailability that's key.

That's what I've been wondering from the start. But it seems like "sugar
fermentation" in cancer cells must refer to sugar gotten from bg. Could the
research be referring to other sugars that are carried in the bloodstream to
the tissues? And would those sugars reflect the carb count?

Where is Quentin?

>If I had to guess, I think it would flatten out the curves.

Granted. I just can't imagine that is the big effect that is going on in the
research.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA

On 19 Sep 2007 11:13:56 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk>
wrote:
>> Color me confused.
>
>Note the mention in the report of Seyfried's finding that increasing
>the fats in a mouse diet increased the time they survived a
>cancer. Then reducing carbs increased survival time more. So there's
>clearly something here going on with fat metabolism quite apart from
>carbs.

My foster mother shortly after being diagnosed with type 2 diabetes
and going on a low carb diet was also diagnosed with breast cancer.
She had the tumor removed and it came back as a brain tumor from there
it metastasized through out the body. Claiming that a diet change
like low carbing would slow or stop the spread of cancer in general is
irresponsible. There are many types of cancer. When we say breast
cancer are we always talking about the exact same type? No, we're
not.

Humans are not rats. yes rats can be used to model and mimic human
illnesses and treatments but humans react very differently. There is
a hell of a long way to go from using a rat and saying Wow! I found a
cure in rats! to Wow! It works in humans too!

Case in point. In the 30+ years that I have been diabetic I have
heard and read and watched on the news, dozens of "cures" for diabetes
in mice and rats. Not one CURE has come from any of the rodent cures
that will work for humans for any type of diabetes. I am not talking
about treatments or improvements in treatments but actual claims of
and predictions of cures in rodents that would work for humans.

these articles do a lot of good by boosting awareness and fund
raising. But they also provide just enough inaccurate information to
allow the hoaxsters of the world to use them to help sell their scams
like all the American infomercials and the healthsino.scum spammer
posting in this newsgroup now who provides no info on diabetes but
links to as many scams as possible.

--
Måck©® Deltec CoZmore Pumper
Type 1 since 1975
http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org
http://www.diabetic-talk.org
http://www.insulin-pumpers.org
http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/type1and2/
http://www.pandora.com enter "Jason & Demarco"
http://www.ratbags.com/dechunging/


"To announce that there must be no criticism of the
President, or that we are to stand by the President
right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile,
but is morally treasonable to the American public."
....Theodore Roosevelt

(o ô)
--ooO-(_)-Ooo--------------------

"I don't know half of you
half as well as I should like;
and I like less than half of you
half as well as you deserve."
....Bilbo Baggins


DISCLAIMER If you find a posting or message from me
offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it.
If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to
me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate...
..

x-no-archive: yes

Jim Chinnis wrote:
> Susan <nevermind@nomail.com> wrote in part:
>
>
>>x-no-archive: yes
>>
>>Jim Chinnis wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Does anyone here know what the effect of a ketogenic diet is on blood
>>>glucose levels (in a non-diabetic)?
>>>--
>>
>>
>>I don't have time to search my archives right now, but I think you could
>>be barking up the wrong tree; it may not be serum levels, but
>>bioavailability that's key.
>
>
> That's what I've been wondering from the start. But it seems like "sugar
> fermentation" in cancer cells must refer to sugar gotten from bg. Could the
> research be referring to other sugars that are carried in the bloodstream to
> the tissues? And would those sugars reflect the carb count?
>
> Where is Quentin?
>
>
>>If I had to guess, I think it would flatten out the curves.
>
>
> Granted. I just can't imagine that is the big effect that is going on in the
> research.
> --


I think it's not as simple as bg alone; I know that elevated growth
hormone and IGF1 promote cell proliferation, for example, and all
hormones have an impact on the quantity, action and bioavailability of
others.

The more I read endocrinology, the less I know for sure, and I've had in
depth conversations with two of my docs lately who say it's the most
complex, fascinating, and most difficult aspect of medicine to understand.

Susan

x-no-archive: yes

Måck©® wrote:
> On 19 Sep 2007 11:13:56 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>>Color me confused.
>>
>>Note the mention in the report of Seyfried's finding that increasing
>>the fats in a mouse diet increased the time they survived a
>>cancer. Then reducing carbs increased survival time more. So there's
>>clearly something here going on with fat metabolism quite apart from
>>carbs.
>
>
> My foster mother shortly after being diagnosed with type 2 diabetes
> and going on a low carb diet was also diagnosed with breast cancer.
> She had the tumor removed and it came back as a brain tumor from there
> it metastasized through out the body. Claiming that a diet change
> like low carbing would slow or stop the spread of cancer in general is
> irresponsible.

I SO disagree with you here, Mack.

If you just do a Medline search, for example, on hyperinsulinemia and
various cancers, you'll find a very strong link. Hyperinsulinemia is a
consequence of high carb eating, not only IR.

Susan

Susan <nevermind@nomail.com> wrote in part:

>Hyperinsulinemia is a
>consequence of high carb eating, not only IR.

People tend to forget that.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA

Måck©® wrote:

> these articles do a lot of good by boosting awareness and fund
> raising. But they also provide just enough inaccurate information to
> allow the hoaxsters of the world to use them to help sell their scams
> like all the American infomercials and the healthsino.scum spammer
> posting in this newsgroup now who provides no info on diabetes but
> links to as many scams as possible.

I disagree. Knowing as much as possible that CAN help is useful, even
short of a cure.

That people can misue knowledge to take advantage of others doesn't make
the knowledge less useful.

Unfortunately, no one has found a cure, or even a treatment, for
stupidity yet.

--
http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/

In article <5ld98eF7grbjU1@mid.individual.net>,
Susan <nevermind@nomail.com> wrote:

> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Jim Chinnis wrote:
> > Susan <nevermind@nomail.com> wrote in part:
> >
> >
> >>x-no-archive: yes
> >>
> >>Jim Chinnis wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Does anyone here know what the effect of a ketogenic diet is on blood
> >>>glucose levels (in a non-diabetic)?
> >>>--
> >>
> >>
> >>I don't have time to search my archives right now, but I think you could
> >>be barking up the wrong tree; it may not be serum levels, but
> >>bioavailability that's key.
> >
> >
> > That's what I've been wondering from the start. But it seems like "sugar
> > fermentation" in cancer cells must refer to sugar gotten from bg. Could the
> > research be referring to other sugars that are carried in the bloodstream to
> > the tissues? And would those sugars reflect the carb count?
> >
> > Where is Quentin?
> >
> >
> >>If I had to guess, I think it would flatten out the curves.
> >
> >
> > Granted. I just can't imagine that is the big effect that is going on in the
> > research.
> > --
>
>
> I think it's not as simple as bg alone; I know that elevated growth
> hormone and IGF1 promote cell proliferation, for example, and all
> hormones have an impact on the quantity, action and bioavailability of
> others.
>
> The more I read endocrinology, the less I know for sure, and I've had in
> depth conversations with two of my docs lately who say it's the most
> complex, fascinating, and most difficult aspect of medicine to understand.
>
> Susan

Whew!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endocrinology


Bill

--

S Jersey USA Zone 5 Shade

This article is posted under fair use rules in accordance with
Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, and is strictly for the educational
and informative purposes. This material is distributed without profit.

http://www.ocutech.com/ High tech Vison aid

Jackie Patti wrote in message
<46f17ba3$0$32564$470ef3ce@news.pa.net>...

>Unfortunately, no one has found a cure, or even a treatment, for
>stupidity yet.


That's because nobody really believes they have it. ;-)

Cheri

x-no-archive: yes

Cheri wrote:

>
> That's because nobody really believes they have it. ;-)
>


And those who believe it the least typically have it the most. ;-)


Susan

x-no-archive: yes

bj wrote:

> Neither of the endos who has treated/followed me for cancer *&* diabetes has
> ever so much as hinted that I should lower carbs to prevent cancer
> recurrence, or that carbs had "helped it grow" in the first place. Not even
> when I had a slightly suspicious test result (turned out to be nothing) a
> few years ago.


Maybe you should share the article with them?

And cruise Medline and use search strings for "hyperinsulinemia and..."
prostate, breast, colon, ovarian, pancreatic cancers for starters.

Susan

"Susan" <nevermind@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:5ld9atF7grbjU2@mid.individual.net...
>
> If you just do a Medline search, for example, on hyperinsulinemia and
> various cancers, you'll find a very strong link. Hyperinsulinemia is a
> consequence of high carb eating, not only IR.
>

Neither of the endos who has treated/followed me for cancer *&* diabetes has
ever so much as hinted that I should lower carbs to prevent cancer
recurrence, or that carbs had "helped it grow" in the first place. Not even
when I had a slightly suspicious test result (turned out to be nothing) a
few years ago.
bj

Susan wrote:

> And cruise Medline and use search strings for "hyperinsulinemia and..."
> prostate, breast, colon, ovarian, pancreatic cancers for starters.

There's a good point there - namely that high insulin levels are also a
potential problem. Personally, I believe that controlling bg is more
important. But high insulin levels are implicated in a whole lot of bad
shit too.

I think I've become hyperaware of this since being on actual injected
insulin. Even though my pancreas puts out more of this stuff than the
average non-diabetic, I still have to inject WAY more than a T1 does to
get decent control.

Well... that insulin was there even before I was injecting it, just made
in my own body. It's kind of sobering to *see* how freaking much of
this stuff I use for only a small portion of my insulin needs.

--
http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/

x-no-archive: yes

On a tangent off the original topic:


August 28, 2007
Contact: Brian Gumm, (202) 234-8494 , bgumm@ombwatch.org
Industry Challenges Impede Cancer Research and Information, New Report
Says
WASHINGTON, Aug. 28, 2007-Allegations of mismanagement, industry
influence, and suppression of whistleblowers at the National Institute
of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Toxicology Program
(NTP) are being investigated by Congress, and the director has
temporarily stepped down. Today, OMB Watch released a report that
further documents industry's attempt to restrict access to health and
safety information produced by NTP.
An Attack on Cancer Research: Industry's Obstruction of the National
Toxicology Program illustrates how, over the past five years, industry
has repeatedly misused the Data Quality Act (DQA) to suppress
important cancer-related information. Among other duties, NTP
publishes the biennial Report on Carcinogens (RoC), which is used by
local, state and federal authorities to set environmental policies,
explore regulations on dangerous substances and provide for
preventative health measures.
"We discovered that industry has tried to use DQA to challenge every
aspect of the NTP scientific review and release process," said Clayton
Northouse, Information Policy Analyst at OMB Watch. "Special interest
associations have challenged meetings, press releases, notices to
study specific chemicals and other documents that are clearly beyond
the parameters of DQA. Instead of seeking to improve the quality of
data, the intent of these challenges seems to be to keep scientific
information out of the hands of health professionals and government
decision-makers."
The report documents how the latest RoC has been delayed for more than
one year due to numerous frivolous DQA challenges. The industry
challenges, though, do more than impede the flow of critical
information to those who need it. The complaints also use up valuable
staff time in a program with a small number of employees. This is time
that should instead be used researching potential cancer-causing
agents and safeguarding public health.
OMB Watch concludes the report with recommendations for NTP and other
government programs and agencies regarding the implementation of DQA.
The goal of the recommendations, Northouse said, is to "improve the
quality of government data without diverting resources away from
protecting the health and safety of the American public."

http://ombwatch.org/article/articlev.../192?TopicID=5

An Attack on Cancer Research is available online at
http://www.ombwatch.org/info/NTPDataQuality.pdf.

Jim Chinnis wrote:
> Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote in part:
>>> "... theoretical debate ... whether ... believe ... theory ...
>>> If .... they should ... should be ... seem ...."
>> Seems like a heck of a lot of speculation in such a small paragraph.
>
> There's some very strong and detailed evidence that links the way cancers
> grow without apoptosis and a change in their mitochondria that mean they
> cannot use ketone bodies and must use glucose.

I did not claim there was or wasn't evidence.
I merely stated that an average of two such
wishy-washy terms per line in THAT paragraph
is hardly persuasive.

--
Wes Groleau

Pat's Polemics = http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett

x-no-archive: yes

Wes Groleau wrote:

> I did not claim there was or wasn't evidence.
> I merely stated that an average of two such
> wishy-washy terms per line in THAT paragraph
> is hardly persuasive.
>

Wes, when I seem some interesting research and conclusions that don't
persuade me (and it's rare that a single study does), I do some of my
own digging to see how or if it can be validated.

Susan

M????? <trolls@renotworthsaving.net> wrote:
> On 19 Sep 2007 11:13:56 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>>> Color me confused.
>>
>>Note the mention in the report of Seyfried's finding that increasing
>>the fats in a mouse diet increased the time they survived a
>>cancer. Then reducing carbs increased survival time more. So there's
>>clearly something here going on with fat metabolism quite apart from
>>carbs.

> My foster mother shortly after being diagnosed with type 2 diabetes
> and going on a low carb diet was also diagnosed with breast cancer.
> She had the tumor removed and it came back as a brain tumor from there
> it metastasized through out the body. Claiming that a diet change
> like low carbing would slow or stop the spread of cancer in general is
> irresponsible. There are many types of cancer. When we say breast
> cancer are we always talking about the exact same type? No, we're
> not.

> Humans are not rats. yes rats can be used to model and mimic human
> illnesses and treatments but humans react very differently. There is
> a hell of a long way to go from using a rat and saying Wow! I found a
> cure in rats! to Wow! It works in humans too!

Calm down! The research wasn't about a cure, and I wasn't suggesting
that rat results necessarily generalise to humans. I was talking about
research which helps us to understand what is going on. And as it
happens the basic biochemistry of cell metabolism, the burning of
glucose, the hormonal feedback systems which control BG using insulin
etc., is in evolutionary terms very old indeed. The differences
between us and other mammals such as rats are largely tweaks. Since
there is a lot we don't yet understand about the basic machinery we
can learn a lot from rats.

Where rat studies start being questionable is when they're used to
make generalisations about the safety of treatments, such as
drugs. That's quite a different sort of research.

--
Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Susan wrote:
> Wes, when I seem some interesting research and conclusions that don't
> persuade me (and it's rare that a single study does), I do some of my
> own digging to see how or if it can be validated.

As I said, I'm already fairly convinced of the value
of reducing carbohydrates. I was just "impressed"
with the political-speech style of that particular
paragraph.

--
Wes Groleau

Even if you do learn to speak correct English,
whom are you going to speak it to?
-- Clarence Darrow