Dr. Peter Attia wrote:A couple of weeks ago Tim Ferriss and I were having dinner and the topic of cancer came up. As some of you may know my background is in oncology, specifically in exploring immune-based therapies for cancer by exploiting the properties of regulator T-cells. But that was a long time ago. Like many of you, I expect, I’ve also been personally impacted by cancer having lost a friend to glioblastoma multiforme (GBM). I often describe GBM to people as one of the cancers that gives cancer a bad name. When I went to medical school I planned on becoming a pediatric oncologist, and though I ultimately chose to pursue surgical oncology, my interest in helping people with cancer never wavered.
Over dinner that night, Tim asked me if I could write – in about 1,000 words! – a post on cancer that would be interesting and digestible to a broad audience. “1,000 words?!,” I asked. “How about 30,000 words?,” I responded only half kidding. After explaining why I couldn’t possibly write such an abridged version, Tim talked me into it. And so, I plan to accept the challenge and hope to provide readers with such a post (it will be on Tim’s blog when I do so), hopefully in the next month or two.
For an introduction, however, I’d like take a step back and place this topic in a broader context. I don’t need to say much about cancer that you don’t already know. You probably know that about one in three Americans will develop cancer in their lifetime, and you probably know that about half of them will succumb to the disease. What you may not know, however, is that we have made virtually no progress in extending survival for patients with metastatic solid organ tumors since the “War on Cancer” was declared over 40 years ago. In other words, when a solid organ tumor (e.g., breast, colon, pancreatic) spreads to distant sites, the likelihood of surviving today is about what it was 40 years ago with rare exceptions. We may extend survival by a few months, but not long-term (i.e., overall) survival.
We screen better today for sure, but subtracting lead-time bias, it’s not clear this extends overall survival. We’ve had success in treating and even curing hematologic cancers (e.g., some forms of leukemia and lymphoma). Certainly testicular cancer patients (especially seminomatous) are better off today and those with GI stromal tumors (GIST), too. Surgical control of cancer is much better today and some local treatments (e.g., specific radiation), too. But for the most part, when a patient has metastatic cancer today, the likelihood of living 10 more years is virtually unchanged from 40 years ago.
About a year ago, I was asked to give a talk about metabolic disease to a group of physicians. But before I spoke, a very astute and soft-spoken oncologist, Dr. Gary Abrass, gave the following introduction as a way to frame the context of my talk. After all, I’m sure many in the audience were wondering what could a discussion of insulin resistance have to do with cancer. I have thought often of his words that night in the many months since he so eloquently and informally introduced me.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
The current study is the first to reveal that pancreatic cancer cells send signals to stellate cells (a type of cell in the pancreatic environment that can secrete substances that provide structural support), causing them to break down their own cell parts into various building blocks, including the amino acid alanine. Cancer cells then take up the alanine into their cell powerhouses, called mitochondria, and use it as a fuel source in place of glucose.
Dr. Elizabeth Stoll from Newcastle University’s Institute of Neuroscience is the lead author of the study. She says patients with malignant glioma currently receive a poor prognosis, and new interventions are desperately needed to increase the survival and quality of life for patients with the condition. Their results provide new insight into the fundamental biochemistry of cancer cells, with exciting implications for patients in the future. Most cells within the adult brain require sugars to produce energy and sustain function. Interestingly, they have discovered that malignant glioma cells have a completely different metabolic strategy as they actually prefer to break down fats to make energy. These findings provide a new understanding of brain tumor biology, and a new potential drug target for fighting this type of cancer.
Ferretlover wrote:“Certain chemicals that are common in everyday life have been shown to cause breast cancer in lab rats and are likely to do the same in women, US researchers said Monday.
The paper in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Health Perspectives lists 17 chemicals to avoid and offers women advice on how to minimize their exposure.
They include chemicals in gasoline, diesel and other vehicle exhaust, flame retardants, stain-resistant textiles, paint removers, and disinfection byproducts in drinking water. …
Some of the biggest sources of mammary carcinogens in the environment are benzene and butadiene, which can come from vehicle exhaust, lawn equipment, tobacco smoke and charred food.
Other concerns are cleaning solvents like methylene chloride, pharmaceuticals used in hormone replacement therapy, some flame retardants, chemicals in stain-resistant textiles and nonstick coatings, and styrene which comes from tobacco smoke and is also used to make Styrofoam, the study said.
Carcinogens can also be found in drinking water, researchers said.
"Every woman in America has been exposed to chemicals that may increase her risk of getting breast cancer," said co-author Julia Brody. MSN
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
In August of 2016, the New England Journal of Medicine published a striking report on cancer and body fat: Thirteen separate cancers can now be linked to being overweight or obese, among them a number of the most common and deadly cancers of all — colon, thyroid, ovarian, uterine, pancreatic and (in postmenopausal women) breast cancer.
Earlier this month, a report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention added more detail: Approximately 631,000 Americans were diagnosed with a body fat-related cancer in 2014, accounting for 40% of all cancers diagnosed that year.
Increasingly, it seems not only that we are losing the war on cancer, but that we are losing it to what we eat and drink.
These new findings, while important, only tell us so much. The studies reflect whether someone is overweight upon being diagnosed with cancer, but they don’t show that the excess weight is responsible for the cancer. They are best understood as a warning sign that something about what or how much we eat is intimately linked to cancer. But what?
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Asked why it had taken so long to reach the conclusion, he said that one problem was the time lag between exposure to polluted air and the onset of cancer.
"Often we're looking at two, three or four decades once an exposure is introduced before there is sufficient impact on the burden of cancer in the population to be able to study this type of question," he said.
KaiserJeep wrote:Sugar is not I believe a direct carcinogen. I do however totally accept that it plays numerous roles in damaging the body in various ways that make it more vulnerable to other diseases like cancer, heart disease, and type 2 diabetes. That of course is a rehash of remarks made in this thread previously. But I DO have an original contribution.
I was reminded of this when I made and consumed some delicious breakfast sandwiches this morning. The ham was cured with sugar among other things, the delicious brioche buns turned out to have sugar as the third listed ingredient.
My doctor has just called me "pre-Diabetic" and prescribed Metformin, just in time for Christmas. The great American diet includes lots of sugar, and our Federal Government is subsidizing corn sweeteners to the tune of $24,000,000,000 a year. With our own tax monies as well.
WHO wrote: 4 March 2015 ¦ Geneva - A new WHO guideline recommends adults and children reduce their daily intake of free sugars to less than 10% of their total energy intake. A further reduction to below 5% or roughly 25 grams (6 teaspoons) per day would provide additional health benefits.
Guideline on sugars intake for adult and children
Free sugars refer to monosaccharides (such as glucose, fructose) and disaccharides (such as sucrose or table sugar) added to foods and drinks by the manufacturer, cook or consumer, and sugars naturally present in honey, syrups, fruit juices and fruit juice concentrates.
“We have solid evidence that keeping intake of free sugars to less than 10% of total energy intake reduces the risk of overweight, obesity and tooth decay,” says Dr Francesco Branca, Director of WHO’s Department of Nutrition for Health and Development. “Making policy changes to support this will be key if countries are to live up to their commitments to reduce the burden of noncommunicable diseases.”
Much of the sugars consumed today are “hidden” in processed foods that are not usually seen as sweets. For example, 1 tablespoon of ketchup contains around 4 grams (around 1 teaspoon) of free sugars. A single can of sugar-sweetened soda contains up to 40 grams (around 10 teaspoons) of free sugars.
Worldwide intake of free sugars varies by age, setting and country. In Europe, intake in adults ranges from about 7-8% of total energy intake in countries like Hungary and Norway, to 16-17% in countries like Spain and the United Kingdom. Intake is much higher among children, ranging from about 12% in countries like Denmark, Slovenia and Sweden, to nearly 25% in Portugal. There are also rural/urban differences. In rural communities in South Africa intake is 7.5%, while in the urban population it is 10.3%.
Reducing sugars intake to less than 10% of total energy: a strong recommendation
The recommendations are based on analysis of the latest scientific evidence. This evidence shows, first, that adults who consume less sugars have lower body weight and, second, that increasing the amount of sugars in the diet is associated with a weight increase. In addition, research shows that children with the highest intakes of sugar-sweetened drinks are more likely to be overweight or obese than children with a low intake of sugar-sweetened drinks.
Based on the quality of supporting evidence, these recommendations are ranked by WHO as “strong”. This means they can be adopted as policy in most situations.
Further reduction to less than 5% of total energy intake: a conditional recommendation
Given the nature of existing studies, the recommendation of reducing intake of free sugars to below 5% of total energy is presented as “conditional” in the WHO system for issuing evidence-based guidance.
Few epidemiological studies have been undertaken in populations with a low sugars intake. Only three national population-wide studies allow a comparison of dental caries with sugars intakes of less than 5% of total energy intake versus more than 5% but less than 10% of total energy intake.
These population-based ecological studies were conducted during a period when sugars availability dropped dramatically from 15kg per person per year before the Second World War to a low of 0.2kg per person per year in 1946. This “natural experiment”, which demonstrated a reduction in dental caries, provides the basis for the recommendation that reducing the intake of free sugars below 5% of total energy intake would provide additional health benefits in the form of reduced dental caries.
WHO issues conditional recommendations even when the quality of evidence may not be strong on issues of public health importance. A conditional recommendation is one where the desirable effects of adhering to the recommendation probably outweigh the undesirable effects but these trade-offs need to be clarified; therefore, stakeholder dialogue and consultations are needed before the recommendation is implemented as policy.
Updating the guideline on free sugars intake is part of WHO's ongoing efforts to update existing dietary goals to prevent NCDs. The sugars guidelines should be used in conjunction with other nutrient guidelines and dietary goals, in particular those related to fats and fatty acids, including saturated fat and trans-fat.
In March 2014, WHO opened a public consultation on the then draft sugars guideline to seek inputs from all stakeholders. More than 170 comments were received from representatives of government agencies, United Nations agencies, nongovernmental organizations, industries and academic institutions as well as other interested individuals. An expert peer review process was also undertaken in 2014. The final guideline was prepared taking into account comments received from the public consultation and expert peer review.
Countries can translate the recommendations into food-based dietary guidelines that consider locally available food and customs. Additionally, some countries are implementing other public health interventions to reduce free sugars intake. These include nutrition labelling of food products, restricting marketing to children of food and non-alcoholic drinks that are high in free sugars, fiscal policies targeting foods and beverages high in free sugars, and dialogue with food manufacturers to reduce free sugars in processed foods.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Shocking New Study Shows Half of Cancer Patients are Killed by Chemotherapy, Not Cancer
High-cholesterol diets send cancer cells into overdrive and cause tumours to grow 100 times faster, according to new research.
"The primary cause of breast, colon and prostate cancer is the ordinary amount of fat in the diet . . . Animal studies show a direct rise of colon cancer if you use butter and lard."
The chances of lung cancer, even among smokers, are also reduced on a low-cholesterol diet, Pritikin said.
"Lung cancer is more affected by cholesterol levels than how long you have smoked or the number of cigarettes smoked."
The reason, he explained, is due to the inhibiting effect cholesterol has on the white blood cells that destroy cancer cells. "Cancer runs rampant with nothing to destroy it," he said.
Then we have the fact that cancer cells need glucose to survive. Normal cells can function in a ketosis regime (like the heart muscle does all the time) but cancer cells cannot. So all the suckers that swallow these lies will continue to eat their "fat free" cookies and get more LDL (via triglycerides) and glucose to stoke the cancer.
The Healthiest Hearts On Earth
What is remarkable about the Tsimane people is that they have the lowest reported levels of coronary artery disease of any population examined to date.
In a new study1 published in Lancet, researchers took CT scans of the hearts of 705 Tsimane men and women ages 40 to 94 to measure the extent of the calcification of their coronary arteries. Essentially, the less calcification one has, the better. A lot of calcium deposits denotes a lot of plaque build-up and blockages of arteries, which means greater risk of heart attacks, angina (chest pain), and other heart-related challenges.
Tsimane CT Scores
Here is what the CT scans of the Tsimane villagers revealed:
85% had no heart disease risk. Their CT scans showed a score of zero, which indicates no evidence of advanced coronary artery disease.
13% had low risk (a score less than 100)
3% had a moderate-to-high risk (a score of more than 100).
American CT Scores
By contrast, a similar study2 of more than 6,000 people ages 45 to 84 in the U.S. had the following calcification results:
Only 14% of the Americans had no risk (a CT score of zero)
36% had low risk
50% had a moderate-to-high risk
“These findings are very significant,” stated cardiologist Randall Thompson, MD, FACC, from Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute. He presented the results of the study at the American College of Cardiology 2017 meeting.
“Put another way, the arteries of the Tsimane are 25 to 30 years younger than the arteries of sedentary urbanites. The data also show that the Tsimane arteries are aging at a much slower rate.”
Indeed, the healthy arteries of the Tsimane villagers continued into old age. Among those who were over the age of 75, fully two-thirds had a CT score of zero. Only 8% had a moderate- or high-risk score of more than 100.
KaiserJeep wrote: The ham was cured with sugar among other things, the delicious brioche buns turned out to have sugar as the third listed ingredient.
My doctor has just called me "pre-Diabetic" and prescribed Metformin, just in time for Christmas.
Return to Medical Issues Forum
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests