102 replies to this topic

[theconomist]

Hello everyone.

First of all I'm not sure this is the right section to post this, it's a nutritonal issue but with an specific angle: fasting and ketosis.

In my quest to learn more about alternative cancer treatments/prevention methods (out of curiosity and fear mostly) I've come across the work of Thomas Seyfried who works on cancer as a metabolic disease. He has done some very interesting research on ketogenic diets and brain cancer which have been discussed in this forum in the past.

In a podcast I recently listened to he was talking about a therapeutic fast of 7-10 days once a year as a means to prevent cancer.

http://www.thelivinl...re-episode-302/

From my understanding going through this sort of fast would (amongst other benefits) ''purge'' your body of the cancerous cells by weakning them enough that they're easily fought off by either your immune system if in early stages or chemo therapy if advanced enough.

There has already been research on 48 hours of fasting prior to chemotherapy showing positive results, a topic which again has been discussed in this forum previously.

I'm intersted in his therapeutic fast as a way to prevent cancer unfortunately I lack the knowledge to really understand if this would work but I'm also left wondering if the ''solution'' is so simply why this is not researched more extensively. Cancer feeds on glucose, fasting induces ketosis and stresses your healthy cells to go into preservation mode while cancer cells can't adapt adequately so they die.


Fasting for 10 days every year could be something to add to our regimens if this particular benefit is fonded.

My question is: what do you guys think of this?

http://www.bc.edu/sc...n/seyfried.html

[DePaw]

Normal cells have functioning mitochondria so can feed off glucose as well as fats and ketones; cancer cells can only feed on glucose. So fasting or inducing ketosis via restricting carbohydrates starves cancer cells.

http://en.wikipedia....ncer_hypothesis

http://scholar.googl...ved=0CDcQgQMwAA

[theconomist]

The trillion dollar question is; would an extended fast kill the cancerous cells?

Edited by theconomist, 21 March 2013 - 12:16 PM.

[DePaw]

Yes but eventually the fast will kill you too, this is why ketogenic dieting is so brilliant, it feeds normal cells while starving cancer cells and can be done forever.

[xEva]

A ketogenic diet is very different from a fast. It is meant to mimic certain aspects of a fast but only therapeutic ketogenic diets with very low calories approach the real thing.

And by the way, it is not true that cancer cells feed exclusively on glucose. Even Seyfried says that they feed on glutamate too, A few years back an idea was popular that cancer cells do not have functioning mitochondria, which proved to be wrong.

Edited by xEva, 23 March 2013 - 02:21 AM.

[DR01D]

Awesome podcast! Thanks for posting.

[theconomist]

A ketogenic diet is very different from a fast. It is meant to mimic certain aspects of a fast but only therapeutic ketogenic diets with very low calories approach the real thing.

And by the way, it is not true that cancer cells feed exclusively on glucose. Even Seyfried says that they feed on glutamate too, A few years back an idea was popular that cancer cells do not have functioning mitochondria, which proved to be wrong.

But theoretically cancer could still be starved to death through a long enough fast.

[DR01D]

Near the 26 minute mark of the podcast Dr. Thomas Seyfried mentioned that a 7 to 10 day water fast once per year dramatically reduced the chance that someone would get any type of cancer.

"If you want to prevent cancer you do a therapeutic fast once per year. The probability of getting cancer would be extremely low relative to those people who don't do that simply because you are going to purge the body of any particular cell that's going to be glycolytic and an incipient cancer cell."

"...7 to 10 days on distilled water only. If you want to prevent yourself from getting cancer you would probably engage in that once per year."

"It will ward off any cancer, not just brain cancer."

Edited by DR01D, 23 March 2013 - 08:15 PM.

[theconomist]

The above is exactly what i'm talking about; what do you guys think of this?

[theconomist]

Very interesting video on this subject:

View on Vimeo.

Eugene Fine, M.D's presentation on cancer and ketogenic diets.

[MrHappy]

And by the way, it is not true that cancer cells feed exclusively on glucose. Even Seyfried says that they feed on glutamate too, A few years back an idea was popular that cancer cells do not have functioning mitochondria, which proved to be wrong.

Would you have a source for that? My understanding of DCA (dichloro-acetate) in cancer research relies on that mitochondrial abnormality in cancer cells - and the trials have been rather successful.

[theconomist]

And by the way, it is not true that cancer cells feed exclusively on glucose. Even Seyfried says that they feed on glutamate too, A few years back an idea was popular that cancer cells do not have functioning mitochondria, which proved to be wrong.

Would you have a source for that? My understanding of DCA (dichloro-acetate) in cancer research relies on that mitochondrial abnormality in cancer cells - and the trials have been rather successful.

Hasn't DCA been shown to not be worth researching further?
I remember reading somewhere that the results simply where not conclusive enough following the University of Alberta trial; http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/20463368

[MrHappy]

And by the way, it is not true that cancer cells feed exclusively on glucose. Even Seyfried says that they feed on glutamate too, A few years back an idea was popular that cancer cells do not have functioning mitochondria, which proved to be wrong.

Would you have a source for that? My understanding of DCA (dichloro-acetate) in cancer research relies on that mitochondrial abnormality in cancer cells - and the trials have been rather successful.

Hasn't DCA been shown to not be worth researching further?
I remember reading somewhere that the results simply where not conclusive enough following the University of Alberta trial; http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/20463368

It's still being actively researched at universities with promising results. Hey, the study you posted looked like positive results?

[theconomist]

And by the way, it is not true that cancer cells feed exclusively on glucose. Even Seyfried says that they feed on glutamate too, A few years back an idea was popular that cancer cells do not have functioning mitochondria, which proved to be wrong.

Would you have a source for that? My understanding of DCA (dichloro-acetate) in cancer research relies on that mitochondrial abnormality in cancer cells - and the trials have been rather successful.

Hasn't DCA been shown to not be worth researching further?
I remember reading somewhere that the results simply where not conclusive enough following the University of Alberta trial; http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/20463368

It's still being actively researched at universities with promising results. Hey, the study you posted looked like positive results?

According to Wikipedia In May 2010 the team published a press releasestating no conclusions could be drawn as a result of the trial. with a link to the pub med study, I quickly overlooked the study but it's really not my field so I can't judge.
Can you send me some links to ongoing studies.
DCA was promising when I first read about it, it's just that the ''cure'' to cancer has been found so many times this past decade it's a bit hard to know which specific area of research one ought to follow. I don't think cancer ''cure'' will be a Flemming's penicilin type of discovery but rather a slow process where we learn to manage the disease as a chronic one like we do with diabetes today; it'll involve prevention, management and at the advanced stages more effective treatments.

[MrHappy]

And by the way, it is not true that cancer cells feed exclusively on glucose. Even Seyfried says that they feed on glutamate too, A few years back an idea was popular that cancer cells do not have functioning mitochondria, which proved to be wrong.

Would you have a source for that? My understanding of DCA (dichloro-acetate) in cancer research relies on that mitochondrial abnormality in cancer cells - and the trials have been rather successful.

Hasn't DCA been shown to not be worth researching further?
I remember reading somewhere that the results simply where not conclusive enough following the University of Alberta trial; http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/20463368

It's still being actively researched at universities with promising results. Hey, the study you posted looked like positive results?

According to Wikipedia In May 2010 the team published a press releasestating no conclusions could be drawn as a result of the trial. with a link to the pub med study, I quickly overlooked the study but it's really not my field so I can't judge.
Can you send me some links to ongoing studies.
DCA was promising when I first read about it, it's just that the ''cure'' to cancer has been found so many times this past decade it's a bit hard to know which specific area of research one ought to follow. I don't think cancer ''cure'' will be a Flemming's penicilin type of discovery but rather a slow process where we learn to manage the disease as a chronic one like we do with diabetes today; it'll involve prevention, management and at the advanced stages more effective treatments.

Recent stuff -
http://www.ncbi.nlm....ubmed/22425553/
http://www.ncbi.nlm....ubmed/21557214/

More discussion -
http://onlinelibrary.../ijc.25728/full (check the references, too)

Since it is patent-free and no big pharma will touch it, funding is probably the bottle-neck.

[Luminosity]

I'm not sure the people on this thread can hear me, but I went on numerous fasts, cleanses and diets in my younger life and I regret it. I feel that they harmed my health and changed the set point of my metabolism so I am overweight even though I eat better than most people. I also went on the popular low carb diet of that time for quite a while. I feel that that was harmful too. I would not fast.

A healthy, well-nourished body is your best bet to fight off disease. When you are starving certain cells, you are also starving all your cells, and your body resents this. I would discourage high-handed, maniuplative tactics when seeking health. Your body is your partner, like a husband or wife. Whatever privations you put your body through will be paid for later. A body likes to eat a well-balanced diet, and likes regular meals. There is no mad scientist short cut to immortality. You live only as long as your body wants to be with you.

Edited by Luminosity, 24 March 2013 - 02:26 AM.

[MrHappy]

I'm not sure the people on this thread can hear me, but I went on numerous fasts, cleanses and diets in my younger life and I regret it. I feel that they harmed my health and changed the set point of my metabolism so I am overweight even though I eat better than most people. I also went on the popular low carb diet of that time for quite a while. I feel that that was harmful too. I would not fast.

A healthy, well-nourished body is your best bet to fight off disease. When you are starving certain cells, you are also starving all your cells, and your body resents this. I would discourage high-handed, maniuplative tactics when seeking health. Your body is your partner, like a husband or wife. Whatever privations you put your body through will be paid for later. A body likes to eat a well-balanced diet, and likes regular meals. There is no mad scientist short cut to immortality. You live only as long as your body wants to be with you.

Why did you feel that low-carb was bad for you? I feel great.

[DR01D]

My sense is that Dr. Thomas Seyfried is correct. Cancer cells dependent on glucose die off during a fast. I'm not an expert but my sense is that most cancers are dependent on glucose.

Nature: Glucose deprivation activates a metabolic and signaling amplification loop leading to cell death

For arguments sake let's use a cancer that doubles every 100 days. Also lets assume that 75% of cancer cells get wiped out by a 7 to 10 day fast. It could be more or less, I don't know.

Table showing doubling time of cancer cells

1 untreated cancer cell becomes 262,144 in approximately 5 years.
However if a yearly fast knocks out 75% of the cells 1 cancer cell becomes approximately 1,565 in 5 years.

That's a reduction in tumor size of over 99%. If the cancer doesn't mutate and become dependent on something other than glucose it may never grow large enough to become lethal. Also consider that cancer may be cured in another 20 or 30 years. A yearly fast may give the average person all the horsepower they need to ward off many or even most types of cancer.

... and I should add I'm in no position to question Dr. Seyfried. Maybe he is right, it's all cancer.

Edited by DR01D, 24 March 2013 - 03:40 AM.

[DR01D]

BTW I just ran the equation again with the assumption that a yearly fast knocked out 90% of the cancer cells.

After 10 years 1 cell became just 160 cells. At that rate it might take 40 or 50 years before this cancer grew large enough to cause symptoms let alone become lethal.

I don't know what the real numbers are but I think Dr. Seyfried makes an interesting point on how fasting might ward off cancer.

[Luminosity]

This was my experience, Mr. Happy. Eating too much protein damages the kidneys over time and eating too little carbohydrate often supplies too little seratonin, and energy. Not eating a variety of fruits and vegetables, if that is part of the diet, also doesn't give enough nutrients.

[xEva]

And by the way, it is not true that cancer cells feed exclusively on glucose. Even Seyfried says that they feed on glutamate too, A few years back an idea was popular that cancer cells do not have functioning mitochondria, which proved to be wrong.

Would you have a source for that? My understanding of DCA (dichloro-acetate) in cancer research relies on that mitochondrial abnormality in cancer cells - and the trials have been rather successful.

For a while it was thought that cancer cells relied on glycolysis because they had dysfunctional mitochondria; and the idea was still somewhat popular when Seyfried did his interviews. But already then it had already been known for several years that cancer cells relied on glycolysis, because they had to use glycolysis intermediaries to drive their rapid growth and proliferation. In the same way, a growing embryo also mostly relies on glycolysis.

Also, if you read the literature, you will find many in vitro studies of mitochondria and they use the standard cancer cell lines. So I would challenge you in turn to find a study in a reputable journal --not some dubious publication-- which would say that cancer cells don't have functioning mitochondria

But theoretically cancer could still be starved to death through a long enough fast.

Yes, theoretically. And I would like to believe that Seyfried is right and that a decent length fast once a year or so can prevent cancer from developing.

As for the cancer that is already diagnosed, I saw over a dozen of online deaths and only 2 cases of a cure of cancer through fasting. In both cases it took a monumental effort to achieve a cure (several years and several 40-day fasts with stringent diet and lifestyle in between).

Most cancer patients do okay while they fast. Their cancer then indeed goes into remission or slows down. It grows explosively though upon refeeding. Maybe if people were educated about therapeutic ketogenic diets, they could improve their chances. But they believe in "fruits and juices" as healthy food choices, while "fat is bad". Sadly, it is the surviving relatives that usually make the final post.

[MrHappy]

This was my experience, Mr. Happy. Eating too much protein damages the kidneys over time and eating too little carbohydrate often supplies too little seratonin, and energy. Not eating a variety of fruits and vegetables, if that is part of the diet, also doesn't give enough nutrients.

One thing I noticed is that since switching to low-carb, that my daily water requirements went up around 4x - I suspect that's for kidney health. Being vegetarian, the nutrient content is going to be both good and bad for different reasons, but I do eat a healthy amount of green vegetables in a day ... and I supplement anyway. Currently I find myself with more consistent energy than when I was on the glucose/insulin cycle.

Low carbs & tryptophan vs serotonin could be an issue for some people with depression.

[MrHappy]

And by the way, it is not true that cancer cells feed exclusively on glucose. Even Seyfried says that they feed on glutamate too, A few years back an idea was popular that cancer cells do not have functioning mitochondria, which proved to be wrong.

Would you have a source for that? My understanding of DCA (dichloro-acetate) in cancer research relies on that mitochondrial abnormality in cancer cells - and the trials have been rather successful.

Also, if you read the literature, you will find many in vitro studies of mitochondria and they use the standard cancer cell lines. So I would challenge you in turn to find a study in a reputable journal --not some dubious publication-- which would say that cancer cells don't have functioning mitochondria

Cool, well I posted 3 already in my earlier comment today and they also reference other studies that quote the same.

The important distinction is that while MOST cancers do appear to use only glucose for energy, there are some types that can use other sources.
There was some discussion about which types fall into which category in that 54 minute-long vimeo presentation that was linked a couple of comments back.. it was an interesting watch.

[xEva]

Also, if you read the literature, you will find many in vitro studies of mitochondria and they use the standard cancer cell lines. So I would challenge you in turn to find a study in a reputable journal --not some dubious publication-- which would say that cancer cells don't have functioning mitochondria

Cool, well I posted 3 already in my earlier comment today and they also reference other studies that quote the same.

The important distinction is that while MOST cancers do appear to use only glucose for energy, there are some types that can use other sources.
There was some discussion about which types fall into which category in that 54 minute-long vimeo presentation that was linked a couple of comments back.. it was an interesting watch.

Cool, I'll look at your links. Hope they are not too old

I bolded out one word in your post. That's cause most cancers only grow using glycolysis. And the vimeo underscores the well known fact that far from all of them do. However, they can be forced to use their mitochondria (the easiest method is nutrient deprivation aka fasting). Then they stop growing so aggressively and some maybe even reform while others may commit apoptosis. The cells that survive though quickly overrun the patient once nutrients are reintroduced. What that vimeo did not say is how the patients fared after their 4 weeks on a therapeutic ketogenic diet. Based on the Russian fasting forum, I'm afraid not too good.



Regarding your diet, it was off topic on another thread, but I forgot to mention that your diet is very high on protein. It's like cats -- you can say they are on very low carb. Yet they are never in ketosis (unless they are starving). That's because all excess protein, beyond their current need, is converted to glucose. In fact, it is quite common for old cats to be diabetic.

So, regarding your diet, I do not see how it is ketogenic. It's mainly protein and not enough fat. Do you use glucose meter? I know you don't use ketostix. How sure are you that you're on a ketogenic diet?

[MrHappy]

Also, if you read the literature, you will find many in vitro studies of mitochondria and they use the standard cancer cell lines. So I would challenge you in turn to find a study in a reputable journal --not some dubious publication-- which would say that cancer cells don't have functioning mitochondria

Cool, well I posted 3 already in my earlier comment today and they also reference other studies that quote the same.

The important distinction is that while MOST cancers do appear to use only glucose for energy, there are some types that can use other sources.
There was some discussion about which types fall into which category in that 54 minute-long vimeo presentation that was linked a couple of comments back.. it was an interesting watch.

Cool, I'll look at your links. Hope they are not too old
....
So, regarding your diet, I do not see how it is ketogenic. It's mainly protein and not enough fat. Do you use glucose meter? I know you don't use ketostix. How sure are you that you're on a ketogenic diet?

2011, 2012 - pretty recent items. Some good references here and there, also.


So far I'm using breath and urine odour as a general indication. Losing 10% of my total body weight, fat only, in less than a month was a pretty big hint, too.

Ketosis isn't a difficult thing to initiate/maintain. If I had any reason to think there was a problem, I'd do a urine analysis.

[Mind]

This was my experience, Mr. Happy. Eating too much protein damages the kidneys over time and eating too little carbohydrate often supplies too little seratonin, and energy. Not eating a variety of fruits and vegetables, if that is part of the diet, also doesn't give enough nutrients.

Some people at LongeCity and elsewhere have theorized that due to different hormonal balances and a few other (evolutionary) things, that a ketogenic/paleo/low carb diet is easier to maintain and more beneficial for men.

[DePaw]

A ketogenic diet is very different from a fast. It is meant to mimic certain aspects of a fast but only therapeutic ketogenic diets with very low calories approach the real thing.

And by the way, it is not true that cancer cells feed exclusively on glucose. Even Seyfried says that they feed on glutamate too, A few years back an idea was popular that cancer cells do not have functioning mitochondria, which proved to be wrong.

And ketogenic diets shift the body from making glutamate to GABA and glutamine.

[xEva]

Mr. Happy, I'm reading your links

I just wanted to comment -- I ran out of votes and could not upvote Luminosity. I may disagree with her opinion, but I believe that the real value of any forum is in people posting their genuine experiences, whatever they may be. And if so, such posts should NEVER be downvoted, especially if their vote represents the current minority. Otherwise, if I want the studies, I'll go read the studies. I happen to value genuine experiences of real people, and for this I read the forums.

Edited by xEva, 24 March 2013 - 02:01 PM.

[xEva]

See, Mr. Happy, I read the links and the key phrase is this: "The stimulation of mitochondrial function, at the expense of glycolysis, reverses the Warburg effect and is thought to block the growth advantage of highly glycolytic tumors." I.e. the tumor relies on glycolysis because that's what allows it to grow. Even though glycolysis produces only 2 ATP molecules as opposed to 30+ ATPs produced in mitochondira via oxidative phosphorylation, the tumor uses the intermediaries of glycolysis to build new cells. That's the main reason. It's like you have some timber and you can use it to build a shack or you can burn it to make a steam engine to do some work. The tumor is driven to build, while mitochondria run their steam engines. Only because the tumor is prevented from building with DCA and other agents does not mean that it will not resume building once the favorable conditions return. Cancer seems more complex than this model.

[DePaw]

A ketogenic diet is very different from a fast. It is meant to mimic certain aspects of a fast but only therapeutic ketogenic diets with very low calories approach the real thing.

And by the way, it is not true that cancer cells feed exclusively on glucose. Even Seyfried says that they feed on glutamate too, A few years back an idea was popular that cancer cells do not have functioning mitochondria, which proved to be wrong.

Not true, ketogenic diets can be just as ketogenic as fasting without calorie restriction though they do need to limit protein as well as carbohydrates. A diet of 85% calories from fat produces very high blood ketones (BHB), the same level as fasting. Example: http://livinlavidalo...y-121-150/16095