#it’s called the Warburg effect and tumor cells use it because they are in an oxygen deprived environment | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

paleorecipecookbook · 8 years ago

Text

RHR: The Ketogenic Diet and Cancer

In this episode we discuss:

A disorder of energy metabolism

Metabolic dysfunction may be a root cause

How the ketogenic diet can help

Existing research on keto and cancer

Additional evidence supporting the metabolic theory

Why keto alone may not be enough

[smart_track_player url="http://ift.tt/2sHfKMi" title="RHR: The Ketogenic Diet and Cancer" artist="Chris Kresser" ]

youtube

Chris Kresser: Hey, everybody, Chris Kresser here. Welcome to another episode of Revolution Health Radio. Today, we have a question from Kelsey. Let's give it a listen. Kelsey: Hi, Chris, I was just wondering about your thoughts on the ketogenic diet as an approach to cancer prevention and therapy. I just read something about how cancer cells can only thrive on glucose, and in its absence we can prevent cancer potentially. So I was wondering if you could discuss this in a podcast. I think that would be great. Thank you. Chris: Okay. Thanks, Kelsey, for sending that question in. It’s a really great question, one that's been on my mind a lot recently, actually, and I've been diving into the research on. Most of you probably know that cancer dogma holds that malignancies are caused by DNA mutations inside the nuclei of cells and that these mutations ultimately lead to runaway cellular proliferation, which is the hallmark feature of cancer.

A disorder of energy metabolism

But there are some cancer biologists out there that feel that while mutations are ubiquitous in cancer, they may not be the primary driving force of the disease and, as we'll discuss later, they may actually be secondary effects of a deeper underlying process. They believe that cancer is as much a disorder of altered energy metabolism or energy production as it is genetic damage. This goes back to the work of German physician Otto Warburg in the 1920s and 1930s, and we know that healthy cells generate energy using an oxygen-based process of respiration. This is what we refer to as cellular respiration, but Warburg was the first to note that cancer cells prefer an anaerobic, or oxygen-free, process of producing cellular energy known as fermentation. Contemporary researchers like Dr. Thomas Seyfried and Dominic D'Agostino have argued that this dysregulated cellular energy production, or cellular metabolism, is actually what induces malignancy and that by extension, if we limit the fuels available for this process of fermentation, and the fuels are glucose, which is derived from carbohydrate in the diet, and glutamine, which is derived from protein in the diet, then we can actually starve cancer cells and either improve the results of conventional treatment or perhaps even address some cancers independently without conventional treatment.

The ketogenic diet: does it have a place in cancer treatment?

Now, in this view, it's the mitochondria that are particularly to blame for cancer, and there are studies in the ’70s and ’80s that support this. They showed that if you transfer the cytoplasm, which is where the mitochondria is, from a healthy cell into a cell that has the potential to develop cancer, that potential is suppressed, or that tendency to develop cancer is suppressed in that cell. On the other hand, if you transfer the nucleus of a malignant cell into the cytoplasm, which, again, is where the mitochondria is, of a healthy cell, then the tumor potential of that initially malignant cell is inhibited. Both of these lines of evidence suggest that the issue may be with the mitochondria or the cytoplasm of the cell rather than the cell nucleus, which is what the traditional view of cancer is.

Metabolic dysfunction may be a root cause

Seyfried agrees that there is clear evidence that cancer is a genetic disease, since we can inherit mutations that are clearly associated with increased cancer risk. That's not at all controversial. That's well established, and even Seyfried agrees with that. But he argues that many of these mutations that we can inherit are mutations that actually disturb cellular respiration, maybe that the heritable aspect of cancer is not mutation that drives itself—cellular proliferation—but instead are mutations that actually cause mitochondrial dysfunction and defects in cellular respiration. He also points out that many of the non-inherited causes of cancer that have been identified and are clearly recognized, like radiation, impair mitochondrial function. That may be a common mechanism that is shared between these non-inherited causes of cancer and inherited causes of cancer. Mitochondrial dysfunction can be caused by any number of different carcinogens—genetic predisposition, but also radiation, chemical exposures, and diet. Again, this is a kind of way of thinking about it that brings together these different causes. Dominic D’Agostino has argued that the mutations that are often observed in cancer may be secondary to mitochondrial dysfunction because injured mitochondria produce volatile compounds called reactive oxygen species (ROS), and these ROS can damage DNA. In this view, it may be that mitochondrial dysfunction comes first, and then that's what leads to the mutations that are often observed in cancer. As you might suspect, this metabolic theory of cancers is controversial in the mainstream cancer paradigm, but there's already promising initial evidence to support it, and most traditional cancer specialists concede that this metabolic theory has merit, and it may be a piece of the puzzle. I would say that the dominant paradigm idea right now is that metabolic dysfunction is likely one of the pieces of the puzzle, but that cancer is multifactorial and probably does involve genetic mutations that may be independent of metabolic dysfunction and that there are other causes that may not be directly related to metabolic dysfunction. I'm certainly not an expert in cancer. Please keep that in mind when I say this, but I do tend to agree, just my overall view of most diseases, from what I've been able to gather, is that they are multifactorial, and I generally resist theories that seem to suggest that one disease has one cause. That's unusual in my experience, from everything that I've seen. I wouldn't necessarily say that. Dr. Seyfried and Dominic D’Agostino aren’t making that argument either, but I think what they bring to this is a fresh perspective that in many ways if it's true, it can be more empowering for people that are dealing with cancer, and the risk of cancer, because it offers a lever for intervention and treatment above and beyond just the idea that “Oh, I have bad genes and there’s not really anything I can do about it.” Of course, we know that genes alone are not responsible for cancer because we share many of the same genes as our hunter–gatherer ancestors and even just the same genes as our ancestors several generations ago, and yet the rate of cancer keeps going up. It's expected to overtake cardiovascular disease as the number one cause of death in the U.S. fairly soon, and so that can't be explained by genes alone.

How the ketogenic diet can help

Getting back to the ketogenic diet, which was Kelsey's original question, both ketogenic diet and fasting restrict the availability of glucose to tumor cells. When you eat a ketogenic diet, you're dramatically limiting the amount of carbohydrate, and thus the amount of glucose, that comes into your body. From this metabolic theory of cancer, that would be why a ketogenic diet, and fasting, of course, which limits not only carbohydrate but everything else, and fasting produces ketones. This is why these two approaches would help with cancer if this theory is correct, because when our energy metabolism shifts to fat or ketones away from glucose, cancer cells cannot utilize ketones, but our healthy cells can. One of the main goals with cancer treatment, as I'm sure you know, is how do we address the cancer cells without also killing the healthy cells. That's really the Shangri-La when it comes to cancer treatment, and the ketogenic diet is really interesting from that perspective because it offers a possibility of doing that. It's a change that simply the shift in metabolism from glucose to fat means that the cancer cells won't thrive, but the healthy cells can thrive.

Existing research on keto and cancer

Let's talk a little bit about the research that exists so far on ketogenic diet and cancer. It's pretty thin overall, but what does exist, I would say, is already promising. There's a decent amount on ketogenic diet in animals—certainly more than humans. For example, a pretty large number of animal studies have shown that a ketogenic diet can reduce tumor growth and improve survival rates. There was one 22-day study in mice that looked at the differences between the ketogenic diet and other diets. That study found that a ketogenic diet reduced tumor growth by up to 65% and nearly doubled survival time in some cases. There is another study in mice that tested the ketogenic diet with or without hyperbaric oxygen therapy and compared to the standard diet, the ketogenic diet increased mean survival time by 56 percent and that number increased to 78 percent when it was combined with hyperbaric oxygen. There's less research, as I mentioned before, in humans, but the little that does exist, I think, is promising and should lead us to doing more. One study monitored tumor growth in response to a high-carb versus a ketogenic diet in 27 patients with cancer of the digestive tract. Tumor growth increased by 32.2 percent in patients who received the high-carb diet, but actually decreased by 24.3 in the patients on ketogenic diet. However, in this study, the difference was not statistically significant. That's a whole other discussion about statistical significance that I won’t go into here, but that's one potential reason to take that study with a grain of salt. In another study, three out of five patients on a ketogenic diet combined with radiation or chemo experienced complete remission. Interestingly, the other two participants found that the disease progressed after they stopped the ketogenic diet. Definitely, much more study is needed here, but because of our increased understanding of the metabolic aspects of cancer and some of the research that does exist and some other lines of evidence that support the metabolic theory, which I'm going to mentioned in a second, I'm optimistic about what we can learn here.

Additional evidence supporting the metabolic theory

What are those lines of evidence? Well, there are drugs which lower insulin and glucose, like metformin. It's a commonly used drug in diabetes that has shown promising results in cancer treatment. This is not fringe stuff here. Metformin is being studied. There is an article about it for cancer treatment on the NIH Cancer Institute website and on the MD Anderson website, which are two prominent mainstream cancer treatment organizations. There are several studies to support that as well. Then there are some more experimental drugs that restrict the availability of glucose via inhibition of glycolysis and other processes. One of those drugs is called 2-DG, and that's shown quite a bit of promise, so there's not a lot of research on it yet, and then there's an older drug named DCA, which also limits the availability of glucose. That has shown some promise, although it has known toxicity and side effects. It may not be a good choice for that reason. Anecdotally, I've spoken with some cancer researchers who claim to be virtually curing cancer in animals using a combination of ketogenic diet and PI3K or mTOR, like rapamycin, but these data aren’t published. Again, we need to be cautious about accepting these claims until they've gone through the legitimate scientific channels and people have had a chance to review this research. There are some treatment centers like Care Oncology Clinic in the UK and ChemoThermia Oncology Center in Istanbul that are using ketogenic diet and fasting along with glucose inhibitors and conventional treatment like chemo. They claim to be getting good results, but I don't know much about these cancer centers above and beyond what I just told you. Note that keto only seems to work with the faster-growing cancers like breast cancer, but not as much with slower-growing cancers like prostate cancer. In summary, I think the metabolic theory on cancer is really interesting and there's already some good evidence to support it. Clearly, we need more research. Whether or not this research will get done is the big question because as we know, two-thirds of medical research is sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. It can be difficult for researchers like Dominic D’Agostino to get funding to do this kind of research because nobody can patent the ketogenic diet and fasting. There's not as much money as there would be in a kind of miracle drug that targets gene therapy and things like that. That's one of the reasons there isn't as much research as there might be otherwise. If I was diagnosed with cancer or one of my relatives or friends were diagnosed, I would certainly put the ketogenic diet and fasting at the top of the list of potential treatments to investigate because I see a high potential for benefit and very little downside. You can't say that about many cancer therapies. As we talked about earlier, the goal with cancer treatment is to find something that inhibits the growth of cancer cells but doesn't damage healthy cells. Again, there just aren't that many therapies out there that do that.

Why keto alone may not be enough

I want to be very clear, though, that I don't believe claims that are made on some websites that the ketogenic diet beats chemotherapy for all cancer treatment. There's simply no research to support that. I don't know where those websites are getting that idea, and there's a lot of snake oil when it comes to cancer treatment out there. It's a really vulnerable population. Someone who's diagnosed with cancer, particularly a late-stage cancer that might be terminal, understandably we often feel pretty desperate and might not have the capacity at that moment in time to go through the proper vetting process to make sure that some of the more alternative therapies that are suggested are legitimate, and so you see a lot of wacky stuff recommended for cancer treatment. Now, I don't at all think that metabolic theory of cancer is wacky. There's plenty of both mechanistic, animal, and even some human evidence to support it, but I personally don't believe the extreme claim that a keto diet will beat chemo for all cancers. I just don't think there is research to support that. I also want to be clear that I'm not making any specific recommendation here for treatment of cancer using ketogenic diet or anything else. As I've argued earlier in the podcast, I think cancer is a complex multifactorial disease and varies from individual. The ideology and pathology vary from individual to individual, and treatment decisions should be made with the support of an oncologist and other doctors on the care team. Please don't take anything that I've said in this podcast as a recommendation for your particular situation or somebody in your life that's struggling with cancer. All that said, it’s really promising, interesting info here, and we know that a ketogenic diet can be therapeutic in many other situations. There's not really much downside to the ketogenic diet and fasting if they're done under supervision. Both can have a lot of beneficial effects in terms of upregulating autophagy—cellular repair process, possibly stem cell regeneration in the case of fasting, for both of those. Ketosis has neurological benefits and many other potentially positive effects when it's done in the right circumstances, so I don't see any downside at all in continuing to explore these therapies for cancer treatment. Okay. Thanks again, Kelsey, for sending that question. It’s a really fascinating topic, and everybody else, please do keep sending in your questions to http://ift.tt/1DErq19, and I'll see you next time.

Source: http://chriskresser.com June 23, 2017 at 03:04AM

#paleo #recipe #food #delicious #healthy #yum #diet

1 note · View note

dreddymd · 7 years ago

Text

Sensational new theory of how cancer lives and grows

Did Otto Warburg get it all wrong? This new theory overturns everything we thought we knew about the biology of cancer. In the 1930s, Nobel Laureate Otto Warburg suggested that cancer cells produce the bulk of their energy by breaking down glucose in the absence of oxygen, a process called glycolysis. The Warburg effect, as it is called, is now widely accepted in orthodox cancer research. But it’s WRONG, according to Michael Lisanti at the Kimmel Cancer Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He has a completely different model, which puts a whole new light on how cancer cells feed and grow. Cancer, as we all know, is made up of rogue cells, where the DNA has gone frighteningly wrong and lets cells off the leash of restraint. They multiply out of control and often cannot be stopped: the immune system works hard against them but with certain cancers, they grow too fast, even for a competent immune system. The missing part of the mechanism says Dr. Lisanti, with good evidence to back up his new theory, is that cancer cells release a lot of hydrogen peroxide, which hammers nearby support cells in the tissues called fibroblasts. These decay and lose their vital mitochondria. Without their mitochondria, fibroblasts cannot now metabolize properly using oxygen. They switch to glycolysis as, which we thought was being used by cancer cells. Not so, says Lisanti. According to him, “It’s the Warburg effect, but in the wrong place.”Lisanti calls is the Reverse Warburg Effect. He believes the reason Warburg got it wrong is because he looked at cancer cells in isolation, rather than in co-culture with fibroblasts. So Warburg wasn’t exactly wrong but this new idea takes things forwards several paces. It’s a revolution, if true. But is it? Surprisingly, there is an astonishing amount of evidence to suggest that it is. This form of “metabolic coupling” is already known to exist and mirrors the way in which the epithelial cells that make up the skin and the surface of the body’s organs produce hydrogen peroxide during wound healing. In doing so they rally immune cells to repair the damage – but in cancer the signal is never turned off. Cancer is “a wound that doesn’t heal”, because it keeps on producing hydrogen peroxide. When Lisanti and his team cultured breast cancer cells alongside fibroblasts for five days, they spotted the cancer cells releasing hydrogen peroxide on day two.

By day five, most free radicals generated by the hydrogen peroxide were found inside the fibroblasts [1]. Also, the team found a reduction in mitochondrial activity in fibroblasts, consistent with the cells self-destructing. There was also an increase in glucose uptake by the fibroblasts – a sign of glycolysis [2]. In a further experiment, they found that treating cancer cells with catalase, an enzyme that destroys hydrogen peroxide, triggered a five-fold increase in cancer cell death, possibly by preserving the fibroblasts and cutting off the cancer cells’ fuel supply. The theory looks pretty solid.

WHY CHEMO IS A BAD OPTION

This new theory would explain why chemo often makes things worse. Lisanti makes the point that his own father was saved from colon cancer by timely and effective chemo (yes, it does happen). But he admits it’s a fine line between success and damaging the body. If by chance the chemo is too much, it may be damaging fibroblasts. That would HELP the cancer cells, by feeding them with more “victims”. In certain circumstances, chemo or radiation therapy could be adding to the problem (as well as hurting the patient). It would also reinforce my frequently voiced objection, that at least 50% of a tumor consists of healthy cells [3]. So gauging the success of a treatment by tumor shrinkage is very foolish indeed. Yet that’s what orthodoxy does and is the “required” proof of effectiveness for a drug to be officially approved.

ANY OTHER EVIDENCE?

Can we look around and find any similar mechanisms? You bet! For example, malaria is another disease in which local tissue cells get damaged, giving the malaria parasite a free banquet. Oxidative stress kills infected cells, which then auto-digest and release food for the malaria parasite. Chloroquine, one of the principal antimalarials for decades, has the effect of blocking this self-digestion process and may turn out to be a key anti-cancer agent. Drugs that inhibit the ability of mitochondria to burn lactate and other products of glycolysis may also serve to cut off the tumor’s food supply. One such drug is metformin, widely prescribed to treat diabetes. And guess what? Several recent studies have suggested that people taking metformin have a reduced risk of developing cancer! [4].

NEW MARKER

Lisanti is now gathering evidence to find out whether his ideas can be applied to many cancers or just a few. His theory gives us what may become a valuable new marker for cancer (most of the existing ones are pretty unreliable). A special protein is secreted by healthy fibroblast cells and as they stop producing it, when killed or even damaged, a lowering would suggest a destructive auto-digestion going on. It’s called caveolin-1. Lisanti has recorded a drop in caveolin-1 levels in 40 to 50 per cent of patients with breast cancer, and loss of the protein correlates with early tumor recurrence, metastasis, and resistance to the drug, tamoxifen [5]. He also has evidence for caveolin-1 loss in prostate cancer. So with this particular marker, a drop is a negative finding.

MICRO-ENVIRONMENT

What is happening, in this new model, is that cancer cells form a parasitic relationship with nearby fibroblasts. This changes EVERYTHING! Orthodox medicine has been obsessed with killing cancer cells. A whole new take on this would be to block cancer cells from killing local cells, such as fibroblasts. Antioxidants are supposed to do just that. Surprisingly, the effect of taking everyday antioxidants is disappointing. But there is a measurable effect, as shown by a number of studies, which would certainly be predicted by this new theory. Most chemotherapies work by generating lethal doses of free radicals to kill the cancer cells and this would cancel out the effects of any antioxidant treatments. That may be why the studied effects don’t show too strongly. I agree with Lisanti, who believes we need trials of antioxidants alone, rather than in combination with chemotherapy. A great new way to go in treatment would be by blocking the signaling between cancer cells and fibroblasts, which will stymie the process and starve cancer cells into submission. It’s great to see orthodoxy taking an interest in the micro-environment surrounding disease tissues. But, as I keep pointing out (to the annoyance of “holistic” bigots!), there are some great people out there, pushing in towards the truth, with far more resources than we alternative practitioners could muster.

ANY DOUBTS?

There are always naysayers. But in this case there are sensible objections. They don’t prove Lisanti’s theory is wrong, merely that it needs serious working up. For example, it has been suggested by Dr. Ian Hart of Barts Cancer Institute in London, that if fibroblasts are sacrificing themselves so that the cancer can eat, sooner or later they are going to be completely depleted. And that doesn’t happen. I don’t quite agree with Hart. Cells can replace themselves, after all, either by dividing or maybe from pluripotent stem cells. But Hart says more evidence is needed to confirm this is happening. But also, it may be objected, many previous studies have found increased glycolysis actually in cancer cells. Maybe that could be explained by the strongly symbiotic relationship that clearly develops between cancer cells and fibroblasts.

WHAT ABOUT THE FUTURE OF TREATMENT?

If proven correct, this new theory would change everything about eradicating cancer. Instead of trying to kill cancer cells, which is tricky and dangerous, we should be trying to protect and support local fibroblasts. So good nutrition would be predicted to help – and it does! The use of oxygen therapies would be predicted to help – and they do. Anti-oxidants are crucial (they block the effect of hydrogen peroxide) – and they are. Learn hundreds more major research secrets in cancer treatment–get my book Cancer Research Secrets.

IN CONCLUSION

If Lisanti is correct, his ideas would explain why people become more susceptible to cancer as they age. As we age, our body produces more hydrogen peroxide and free radicals and becomes a fertile ground for cancer. More than 100 years ago, Steven Paget proposed that cancer cells are seeds that need the correct micro-environment in which to grow. “What we’re now saying is that the hydrogen peroxide is the fertiliser,” says Lisanti. [6].

References (5)

A holistic approach to cancer therapy

Dr. Thomas Rau Addresses Living With Cancer And Other Chronic Diseases In the Swiss Secret To Optimal Health

The Benefits of Acupuncture

Amalgam / Mercury Dental Filling Toxicity

from WordPress https://ift.tt/2jGAS1I via IFTTT

#IFTTT #WordPress

0 notes

lauramalchowblog · 5 years ago

Text

Keto and Cancer: Where Do We Stand?

The ketogenic diet has exploded in popularity over the last few years. Hordes of people are using it to lose body fat, overcome metabolic diseases, improve their endurance performance, attain steady energy levels, make their brain work better, and control seizures. And increasing numbers of researchers and personal experimenters are even exploring the utility of ketogenic diets in preventing and/or treating cancer. After all, back in the early part of the 20th century, Warburg discovered an important characteristic of most cancer cells: they generate their energy by burning glucose. If a particular cancer loves glucose, what happens if you reduce its presence in your body and start burning fat and ketones instead?

It’s taken a while, but the research community is finally beginning to take a few swings at this and similar questions.

So, what do we know?

First, let’s just go through a few recent human studies and case studies.

Keto and Cancer Treatment

Women with endometrial or ovarian cancer improved energy levels, appetite, and physical function on a ketogenic diet.

A Bayesian approach to studying the effects of ketogenic diets in humans and animals with high grade glioma (a brain cancer) found an “overall survival-prolonging effect.”

In gliomas, an analysis of available case studies using ketogenic diets found increased overall or progression-free survival. These were not randomized controlled trials, however, so they say nothing definitive.

A recent review paper gives a good overview of the current state of ketogenic diet and cancer research, finding that:

Ketosis targets tumor metabolism.

Ketosis improves effectiveness of conventional therapies.

Ketosis has favorable effects of anti-cancer gene expression.

One thing you might notice is that there are no studies showing that standalone ketogenic diets cure cancer. There aren’t very many randomized controlled trials in general.

What there are are studies showing that ketogenic diets are safe and potentially effective adjuvant treatments—treatments that supplement conventional cancer treatments. You don’t see keto “defeating” cancer alone. You see keto enhancing the effect of chemotherapy. You see keto enhancing the effect of radiation. You see keto protecting normal cells and increasing the vulnerability of cancer cells to conventional treatment.

That’s not to say that keto can’t beat cancer. Maybe it can. But the clinical research simply isn’t there to say one way or the other.

Where keto seems even more promising is in prevention of cancer.

Keto and Cancer Prevention

Diabetes is a disease of carbohydrate intolerance. It’s a disease in which carbohydrate consumption results in elevated blood sugar, exaggerated insulin response. The way most people with diabetes eat leads to chronically high levels of insulin and blood sugar. Yeah, yeah, I know about all the badass Primal eaters who are “technically” diabetic but keep their blood sugar pristine and insulin minimized by watching what they eat, exercising regularly, and just generally leading a healthy lifestyle—but those people aren’t a large enough a group to have an effect on the category known as (and studied as) “diabetics.” Most people with diabetes unfortunately keep eating the same junk that got them there.

What does research say about the cancer rate of most people with diabetes? It’s usually higher.

One of the most consistent risk factors for many types of cancer is having diabetes and experiencing all the metabolic fallout that entails—high fasting insulin, insulin resistance, elevated blood glucose. Cancers of the liver, pancreas, breast, endometrium, bladder, and kidney all have strong associations with type 2 diabetes. This should come as no surprise. Not only do many cancers thrive on glucose as fuel, the high insulin levels typical of people with diabetes and insulin resistance increase the availability of growth factors that promote cancer growth.

Meanwhile, therapies that are known to reduce the symptoms of diabetes—lower fasting insulin, increase insulin sensitivity, normalize blood sugar, etc—tend to lower the risk of cancer. A perfect example is metformin.

Metformin activates AMPK, the same autophagy pathway activated by exercise, fasting, polyphenol consumption, and reduced calorie intake. It lowers blood sugar, increases insulin sensitivity, and extends the lifespan of type 2 diabetics.

Metformin also seems to protect against cancer. It lowers hyperinsulinemia and may protect against insulin-related cancers (breast, colon, etc). Early treatment during adolescence, for example, protects rats against later tumor growth.

What does this have to do with ketogenic diets?

Ketogenic diets have many similar effects. They activate AMPK. They lower blood sugar. They’re great for fat and weight loss, which enhances insulin sensitivity. Recently, researchers have even used ketogenic diets to resolve type 2 diabetes.

Now, not all cancers are linked to diabetes. For example, diabetes doesn’t increase the risk of gastric cancer. That’s because it’s linked to bacterial infection, not elevated blood sugar. And that’s why taking metformin doesn’t reduce the risk of gastric cancer. This actually supports my hypothesis that, when diabetes does not increase the risk of a cancer, neither does metformin reduce it—like gastric cancer. Diabetes doesn’t increase it, so metformin doesn’t reduce it. The mechanism.

Nor do all cancers burn glucose exclusively. Some thrive in a ketogenic environment.

There is a mutation called BRAF V600E in certain cancer cells that allows them to utilize ketone bodies to stimulate growth. About 50% of melanoma, 10% of colorectal cancer, 100% of hairy cell leukemia, and 5% of multiple myeloma cases exhibit the ketone-utilizing BRAF V600E mutation. Indeed, a cancer cell’s inability to break down and metabolize ketone bodies is the best predictor of whether a ketogenic diet can even help against a given cancer.

But if we’re talking prevention. If we accept that not developing diabetes—all else being equal— probably reduces the risk of getting cancer, then using ketosis to improve all the same symptoms linked to diabetes should also reduce the risk of getting cancer. And if it doesn’t reduce the risk, it probably won’t hurt. I mean, is there a doctor alive who claims that increasing insulin sensitivity, lowering hyperinsulinemia, and losing body fat will increase the risk of cancer?

A Few Takeaways To Consider

As I see it—and this is not medical advice—the most promising use of ketogenic diets in cancer are as follows.

Adjuvant therapy: Using ketosis to enhance the efficacy of conventional therapies like chemotherapy and radiation, increasing the susceptibility of cancer cells to treatment and increasing survival of healthy host cells.

Prevention: Using ketosis (whether intermittently or long term) to lower fasting blood glucose, reduce diabetes risk (or resolve extant diabetes), and improve your ability to burn fat and not rely on exogenous glucose so much should in theory reduce your risk of most cancers.

Whatever you do, if you’re an actual cancer patient, discuss this with your doctor. Make sure your particular variety of cancer isn’t partial to ketones. Make sure it’s one of the cancers that actually craves glucose. If you end up with a cancer that thrives on ketone bodies, and you go deep into perpetual ketosis, you could be making an enormous mistake.

But the bottom line is that, assuming you don’t already have one of the cancers known to utilize ketones, going into ketosis from time to time isn’t going to hurt—and it will probably help reduce the risk of cancer.

I’m going to close this post with an anecdote from one of my employees. His father passed away a dozen years ago from multiple myeloma, a type of white blood cell cancer. This was before he worked at Primal Nutrition; he was just getting involved in alternative forms of health and nutrition research. What struck him most, particularly in retrospect, was how his father’s appetite changed during his battle with cancer. He began craving candy—Reese’s peanut butter cups, Hershey’s kisses, Now-and-Laters, and all other kinds. As he says it, looking at his dad’s snack drawer was like looking at the archetypal bag of Halloween candy.

I don’t know if this is evidence of anything. Can cancer actually tap into your specific appetites? Can it change how you perceive and desire specific foods? Was his father actually being programmed by his cancer to over-consume sugar?

Who knows.

What I do know is that no one needs garbage candy. A few seconds of momentary gustatory pleasure, followed by regret and the incessant need to repeat—is it worth it? Is it worth the off chance that eating lots of sugar feeds and promotes cancer? Don’t do it, folks. I know my longtime readers are right there with me. I know you guys who’ve been here from the beginning are probably getting egged on Halloween because you’re giving out collagen packets and mini-kettlebells. But if you’re new to this site and way of eating in general—maybe a co-worker passed my info along to you, maybe you’re trying to make a big change in the way you eat and live—avoiding the obviously terrible-for-you stuff like candy and baked goods is the biggest change you can make. And not just for cancer.

So, do I want you to walk away from this post thinking that keto is a cancer cure? No. I’m a fan of ketosis, and I think almost everyone should spend time in that metabolic state, but I don’t consider it to be magical. The jury is definitely still out. Does ketosis look like a strong candidate for improving efficacy of various therapies in certain cancer patients? Yes. Can keto improve health markers shown to reduce a person’s risk of getting cancer in the first place? Yes.

The keys to good health are generally speaking pretty consistent.

Maintain good insulin sensitivity.

Avoid glucose intolerance.

Get plenty of sleep.

Consume hormetic stressors.

Avoid obesity. Lose body fat.

Exercise, or at least move every day.

Dip into ketosis on a regular basis, either from ketogenic dieting, fasting, meal skipping, or (non-chronic) hard training—or all of the above.

There’s no guarantee against cancer, but I think the advice I just mentioned supports a good fighting chance.

Take care, everyone. Be well.

(function($) { $("#dfhztq7").load("https://www.marksdailyapple.com/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php?action=dfads_ajax_load_ads&groups=960&limit=1&orderby=random&order=ASC&container_id=&container_html=none&container_class=&ad_html=div&ad_class=&callback_function=&return_javascript=0&_block_id=dfhztq7" ); })( jQuery );

window.onload=function(){ga('send', { hitType: 'event', eventCategory: 'Ad Impression', eventAction: '74563' });}

The post Keto and Cancer: Where Do We Stand? appeared first on Mark's Daily Apple.

Keto and Cancer: Where Do We Stand? published first on https://venabeahan.tumblr.com

0 notes

jesseneufeld · 5 years ago

Text

Keto and Cancer: Where Do We Stand?

It’s taken a while, but the research community is finally beginning to take a few swings at this and similar questions.

So, what do we know?

First, let’s just go through a few recent human studies and case studies.

Keto and Cancer Treatment

Women with endometrial or ovarian cancer improved energy levels, appetite, and physical function on a ketogenic diet.

A Bayesian approach to studying the effects of ketogenic diets in humans and animals with high grade glioma (a brain cancer) found an “overall survival-prolonging effect.”

A recent review paper gives a good overview of the current state of ketogenic diet and cancer research, finding that:

Ketosis targets tumor metabolism.

Ketosis improves effectiveness of conventional therapies.

Ketosis has favorable effects of anti-cancer gene expression.

One thing you might notice is that there are no studies showing that standalone ketogenic diets cure cancer. There aren’t very many randomized controlled trials in general.

That’s not to say that keto can’t beat cancer. Maybe it can. But the clinical research simply isn’t there to say one way or the other.

Where keto seems even more promising is in prevention of cancer.

Keto and Cancer Prevention

What does research say about the cancer rate of most people with diabetes? It’s usually higher.

What does this have to do with ketogenic diets?

Nor do all cancers burn glucose exclusively. Some thrive in a ketogenic environment.

A Few Takeaways To Consider

As I see it—and this is not medical advice—the most promising use of ketogenic diets in cancer are as follows.

Who knows.

The keys to good health are generally speaking pretty consistent.

Maintain good insulin sensitivity.

Avoid glucose intolerance.

Get plenty of sleep.

Consume hormetic stressors.

Avoid obesity. Lose body fat.

Exercise, or at least move every day.

Dip into ketosis on a regular basis, either from ketogenic dieting, fasting, meal skipping, or (non-chronic) hard training—or all of the above.

There’s no guarantee against cancer, but I think the advice I just mentioned supports a good fighting chance.

Take care, everyone. Be well.

window.onload=function(){ga('send', { hitType: 'event', eventCategory: 'Ad Impression', eventAction: '74563' });}

The post Keto and Cancer: Where Do We Stand? appeared first on Mark's Daily Apple.

Keto and Cancer: Where Do We Stand? published first on https://drugaddictionsrehab.tumblr.com/

0 notes

kathleenseiber · 6 years ago

Text

Fused mitochondria let dividing cells better use O2

When cells divide rapidly, their mitochondria are fused together, research finds.

In this configuration, the cell can more efficiently use oxygen for energy. Fused mitochondria also churn out a biochemical byproduct, aspartate, that is key to cell division.

This work from the lab of Gary Patti, associate professor of chemistry at Washington University in St. Louis, illuminates the inner workings of dividing cells and shows how mitochondria combine to help cells to multiply in unexpected ways. The findings appear in the journal eLife.

Given that cancer cells are known for dividing at a runaway pace, the new findings may have implications for cancer diagnosis and treatment.

“Most studies of proliferating cells are conducted in the context of cancer, where scientists are comparing a cancer tissue that’s rapidly growing with normal tissue that surrounds the tumor or a normal tissue from a different patient,” says Conghui Yao, a PhD candidate in Patti’s lab and first author of the study. “These kinds of comparisons are physiologically relevant but have some disadvantages.

“A tumor is a very complicated thing, not only because it is made up of different kinds of cells, but also because the environment of a tumor is different from that of healthy tissue,” she adds.

For example, a tumor needs nutrients to grow, but it doesn’t have the blood vessel infrastructure that typically supplies other healthy tissues in the body. As a result, tumors are often starved for oxygen.

But even in the presence of abundant oxygen, cancer cells get energy through a relatively inefficient fermentation process. Instead of using oxygen to burn glucose in their mitochondria to get their juice, cancer cells use an “aerobic glycolysis” process that turns their glucose into lactate. This process is called the Warburg effect.

Although scientists have observed the phenomenon in rapidly dividing cells for more than 90 years, they still don’t fully understand it. The earliest of explanations suggested that mitochondria in cancer cells are damaged in a way that prevents them from producing energy normally.

Yao was familiar with the Warburg effect and its implications. So when she set up an experimental system that allowed her to turn cell division on and off, she was surprised to see that her dividing cells were consuming a lot of oxygen.

“Much of the literature had suggested that dividing cells would do the opposite,” Yao says. “So we looked into not only why our dividing cells were consuming more oxygen, but also how they were able to consume more oxygen.”

Dividing or not

Part of the beauty of Yao’s initial experiment was its simplicity: She was able to measure metabolism in one specific type of cell under two distinct conditions—when the cell was dividing and when it was not dividing. That’s also how she was able to home in on the particular structural change to mitochondria that was driving the efficiencies she observed.

“The dividing cells had the same amount of mitochondria per protein or per mass, compared to non-dividing cells,” says Patti, whose research focuses on the biochemical reactions that underlie metabolism. “But we did notice when we imaged mitochondria in these dividing cells that they are significantly longer.”

Longer because some adjacent mitochondria had fused into one—making multiple, adjoined mitochondria into bigger, more efficient, energy-generating machines.

The other notable thing that “mega-mitochondria” are particularly good at creating, Yao discovered, is a molecule called aspartate that is essential for cells to replicate.

“Recent work from other labs has taught us that one of the most important reasons that dividing cells need to consume oxygen is to make aspartate. So it made sense to us that mitochondrial fusion in dividing cells would increase aspartate production,” Yao says.

Cancer vulnerability?

Yao and Patti are not the first to observe mitochondrial fusion. But they are among the first to interrogate mitochondrial fusion with sophisticated metabolomic technologies, enabling a molecular-level understanding of the process as it relates to cell division. The biochemical alterations they observed may represent processes that can be targeted in malignant cancer cells.

“It is often stated that rapidly dividing cancer cells increase fermentation at the expense of decreasing oxygen consumption for mitochondrial activity,” Patti says. “Our results suggest that at least some rapidly dividing cells increase both processes under normal oxygenated conditions.

“Since utilization of nutrients by rapidly dividing cancer cells is the basis for various drugs and diagnostic tests, these findings may have important clinical significance and may represent a metabolic vulnerability in cancer,” Patti adds.

Funding for the work comes from the National Institutes of Health; the Pew Charitable Trusts; and the Edward Mallinckrodt, Jr. Foundation.

Source: Washington University in St. Louis

The post Fused mitochondria let dividing cells better use O2 appeared first on Futurity.

Fused mitochondria let dividing cells better use O2 published first on https://triviaqaweb.weebly.com/

0 notes

3ezentrum3-blog · 7 years ago

Text

OxyDHQ - Killing Cancer Through Cellular Oxygenation

Low cell oxygen levels can prompt malignancy:

We live in a present reality where hurtful poisons and cancer-causing agents are ever present, even noticeable all around we relax. General family unit items including cleaning items, deodorizers and so on in addition to excellence and skincare creams, shower and shower gels, except if they are normally based, contain parabans and other poisonous substances turned out to be cancer-causing. Notwithstanding this the nourishment we purchase, except if ensured natural, is showered with pesticides and different synthetics which hinder the solid working of our invulnerable framework and can likewise straightforwardly add to tumor.

The development of such poisons in our body brings about the encompassing cells getting to be famished of oxygen. Oxygen assumes a key part in the working of solid cells, they require oxygen as they are vigorous, this implies they consume oxygen to create vitality. At the point when the accessibility of oxygen winds up decreased to a specific point, the cell can't keep on functioning effectively and is currently defenseless to assault from organisms, which really assume control over the cell. Now the breath instrument of the cell stops to work in a 'typical' way, it turns anaerobic. This is the essential working of tumor cells, they are anaerobic and they search out glucose, rather than oxygen, to create vitality. The encompassing solid cells wind up influenced by the working of these harmful cells and absence of oxygen because of the anaerobic procedures of them and they excessively end up incapable, making it impossible to work in a typical way. This is the way tumor can take a hold in our body and start to spread. Growth cells, when in an oxygen denied condition will flourish and spread like out of control fire! As tumor cells get more and more oxygen the rate at which they spread turns out to be slower and slower until the point when they begin to kick the bucket.

Solid cells flourish in a profoundly oxygenated condition and can repair and look after themselves, warding off malady before it even takes a hold. So it is essential that, should we be looked with a genuine ailment, for example, malignancy, cell oxygen levels are supported so as to build our body's capacity to battle the ailment and no more critical level; at cell level!

Your oncologist will be very much aware of the way that oxygen executes tumor, anyway as they are just ready to suggest and endorse any type of medicine that is given to them through pharmaceutical organizations, whose concentration is fundamentally 'licensing medications' they won't be steady in your decision to go down such a course. The huge medication organizations are just keen on delivering solution which they have the lawful rights over, oxygen does not fall into this class, as it can't be licensed and over-estimated.

Otto Heinrich Warburg won Nobel Peace Prize in 1931 for his disclosure that growth cells are anaerobic, so this is in no way, shape or form another idea, only one that has all the earmarks of being just neglected by the restorative business who continually look for the acknowledgment of having the 'following huge malignancy medicate' under preliminary. Continuously tranquilizes on the grounds that this is everything they can 'imagine'. Actually the best medicines are much more basic than this, nature gives all we require and science enables us to include these normal fixings into strong growth executing cures.

Viable techniques for conveying oxygen to cells:

The trouble in effectively conveying oxygen into disease cells emerges because of the thick covering the organism makes around these phones. It has not yet been found very the microorganism shapes this protein covering, yet one of its in all likelihood intentions is to keep oxygen out.

What is required is the capacity to slice through this covering, where the oxygen would then be able to be discharged into the phone. It at that point ends up conceivable, not for the cell bite the dust, but rather for it to recreate itself and come back to typical, solid working.

Most oxygen supplements can't infiltrate the covering around tumor cells. One technique, in any case, which numerous individuals have observed to be exceptionally compelling, is by drinking sustenance review hydrogen peroxide. It is anything but difficult to be put off by the prospect of this however this is just because of absence of comprehension of what hydrogen peroxide really is. We would ordinarily think about a synthetic utilized for dying hair. Truly hydrogen peroxide is totally characteristic and is basically water with an additional oxygen iota. We as a whole know about water as having the nuclear structure (h2o), hydrogen peroxide is fundamentally the same as (h2o2) and this additional oxygen iota gives it some extremely intriguing properties. It has many, numerous utilizations in spite of the fact that it is imperative that, when devoured as a technique for treating disease, an appropriate convention is taken after. Hydrogen peroxide showers are another great method for engrossing oxygen through the skin. I would prescribe perusing "The Many Benefits of Hydrogen Peroxide" http://instruct yourself.org/disease/benefitsofhydrogenperozide17jul03.shtml

Maybe the most ideal approach to effectively oxygenate our cells is by taking OxyDHQ. The proteolytic and pancreatic compounds contained in OxyDHQ can get through the defensive covering around disease cells and oxygen is then discharged into the phone, right where it is required. Notwithstanding this OxyDHQ contains 5% ocean ormus, 84 minerals, 39 compounds, 19 amino acids, 13 noteworthy vitamins, ellagic corrosive, 28 phytonutrients, 19 herbs, 23 entire sustenance greens and a 7 juice mix, making it an extremely dynamic and intense contender of numerous different ailments and also tumor.

What is DHQ?

DHQ not just extraordinarily expands the mending power and disease battling capacity of Oxy DHQ, yet it has likewise been appeared to stretch out solid cell life up to 240% in test tubes. This implies solid cells are likewise being shielded from the spread of growth. DHQ is a ground-breaking free radical scrounger and invigorates the blood and enhance dissemination.

Ascorbo-phoshpate is a type of Vitamin C, significantly more intense than general Vitamin C and is another element of OxyDHQ which upgrades the execution of the DHQ and lifts the disease battling abilities of this item much further. Vitamin C is an intense cell reinforcement and the ascorbo-phoshpate, being around 16 times more grounded is yet another great and against carcinogenic component of OxyDHQ.

Assaulting disease from various points builds the potential for progress:

On the off chance that you are thinking about Oxy DHQ as a component of your growth battling administration, taking it alongside Liquid Zeolite Enhanced with DHQ and PH Balancer 8 builds the potential for progress significantly. These three items are otherwise called the Dynamic Trio and come as combo who is to a great degree well known.

Zeolite, because of its chelating properties is a superb overwhelming metal detoxification technique. The Liquid Zeolite which comes as a major aspect of the Dynamic Trio is improved with DHQ and additionally its detoxification properties, is likewise an extremely compelling malignancy executioner.

Another condition essential for malignancy to flourish is exceedingly acridity levels. PH balancer 8.0 kills the bodies pH levels making it always troublesome for growth to survive, making this a vital point to cover in any disease battling administration.

These items can bring about a malignancy understanding inclination a change rapidly and in any event they will moderate the rate at which the tumor is spreading. On the off chance that the span of the tumor is as yet expanding, however, at that point the measurements should be expanded and maybe utilized as a part of conjunction with some other growth battling supplements.

Beating growth effectively:

It is vital to recollect that, in spite of the fact that the strategies said on this page give possibly a much more powerful approach to beating malignancy than chemotherapy, keeping in mind the end goal to expand this potential a couple of other way of life changes can have significant outcomes. We examined before on in this article, how malignancy cells have 20 times more glucose receptors than solid cells, as this is the way they deliver their vitality; from glucose. It has neither rhyme nor reason; in this way, to eat anything containing any sugar as this is plainly 'sustaining' the growth cells. I likewise said how disease flourishes in a very acidic condition, so no acidic nourishments ought to be eaten. A strict disease eating routine is the most ideal path forward and will support the accomplishment of some other items you take inconclusively.

Keep in mind, the point here is to end up totally disease free and for it never to return. Returning to old way of life and eating routine propensities is basically making the perfect conditions for tumor to return, they are probably going to have had an influence in the arrangement of malignancy in any case, in spite of the fact that this not generally entirely obvious. Be that as it may, keep up the solid way of life and you ought to dependably remain malignancy free!

OxyDHQ Dosage Requirements:

Should you pick OxyDHQ as a major aspect of your disease battling convention, the right measurement prerequisites are vital in amplifying its viability and are reliant on the phase of growth being dealt with.

The following is given the right add up to approach multi month's supply:

Beginning period growth = 3 bottles Advanced disease = 4 bottles Very progressed = 4 bottles End Stage = 5 bottles

On the off chance that you settle on the dynamic trio then the right supply of the Zeolite Enhanced with DHQ and pH Balancer 8.0 are as of now computed around the above figures.

For assist information. and buying points of interest please observe beneath.

OxyDHQ conceivable reactions:

On the off chance that you find subsequent to taking OxyDHQ that you encounter reactions, for example, an irritated belly, at that point a prescribed elective item to utilize would be Zeo3. One conceivable purpose behind such symptoms is whether you can't deal with very acidic beverages and because of the high corrosiveness level of Oxy DHQ, at that point better alternative for you would be Zeo3.

And also conveying oxygen to cells, Zeo3 enhances pH levels in the body and likewise contains some zeolite. This is the following best thing to Oxy DHQ.

Zeo3 is likewise accessible from the connection beneath.

More subtle elements on OxyDHQ can be found at the OxyDHQ Product Page and every single other item, with additionally points of interest on their use, are accessible through the inquiry device on the OxyDHQ connect.

Following my broad research and involvement in th

0 notes

artsoccupychi · 7 years ago

Text

How to Avoid Hidden Added Sugar in Your Food

At GSG I try to be all about the good things you eat–and do–to fuel and strengthen your body.

I want to be all about what to say yes to. Not so much about what you gotta say no, no, never to.

But sugar? It’s everywhere, and it’s nasty stuff.

I’ve written before about how sugar can ruin your health–not only is it cancer’s favorite food, but it’s as dangerous as alcohol and cigarettes. It causes inflammation, addiction, weight gain, and diabetes.

I’ve also written about beating my own sugar addictions–and recent research is showing that “addiction” isn’t too strong a word.

Jeff O’Connell refers to sugar as “America’s deadliest habit,” and Dr. Robert Lustig famously describes how sugar and street drugs have a lot in common in the way they affect the human brain and behavior.1,2

One study has even shown sugar to be more addictive than cocaine.3

And when we give in to the cravings, sugar “rewards” us by making us feel weak, without willpower, out of control, and guilty.

But you know this. It’s likely you’ve already decided to reduce or eliminate sugar in your diet, and I’ll bet you’ve read a lot of labels, noticing added sugar in everything from bread to soup, and even ketchup.

But while you might know that manufacturers put sugar in all kinds of foods that don’t seem like they need it, did you also know that they’re also concealing it by using dozens of different names for “sugar?”

The ingredient may not say “sugar,” but it’s going to trigger the addictions, create the inflammation, and increase your risk of cancer and diabetes, just the same! The first step toward knowing how to avoid hidden added sugar in your food is learning some tricks for spotting them on food labels.

Other names for sugar on ingredient labels

The more we catch on to how deadly sugar is, the more the food industry produces alternatives with tricky or technical names. They would prefer you know less, rather than more, about what you’re eating.

But the list of sugar’s variant names is long.

Most folks are savvy to “sucrose,” “fructose,” and “high-fructose corn syrup” (HFCS) as names for added sugar. Because the -ose suffix was assigned by biochemists to indicate the presence of sugar, you can sleuth for sugars by looking for ingredients with that ending: besides sucrose and fructose, look for dextrose, mannose, maltose, saccharose, and glucose, as well.

Another tip is to watch for “syrups.” Syrups are created by boiling down and concentrating the juices from high-sugar plants like cane and corn. HFCS is the most notorious sugar syrup, of course, but any “syrup” on an ingredient label is an added sugar: malt syrup, rice syrup, refiners’ syrup, carob syrup, maple syrup, and golden syrup are a few more examples.

There are other ingredients with names that are familiar to you, and are even from whole-food sources, but are still concentrated sweeteners and can be considered “hidden sugar:” fruit juice concentrate, honey, maple syrup, molasses, and sorghum.

More ingredients that may not be immediately obvious as being added sugar include muscovado, panocha, treacle, dextrin, and barley malt.

What about the sugar “hiding” in fruit?

The anti-carb folks will hate me for this one. But here’s a fact:

Yes, there are sugars in fruit, but nobody ever got diabetes from eating fruit. In fact, nobody gets fat from eating fruit, either.

(Now, if you’re eating lots of fruit AND you’re eating lots of refined sugar, then you have a problem. But let’s just assume that all of the sugar in your diet comes from fruit.)

Some indigenous people who have no access to Western packaged foods eat lots of fruit, in season. Some cultures, in some parts of the year, it’s the majority of their diet! And they don’t have inflammation, or weight problems. Their diabetic population is approximately zero.

Ignore the diet industry, including the current “low carb” popular trend. Its survival requires you buying their line so you’ll buy their packaged foods. And the line they’re selling is to vilify whole foods with natural sugars in them, which confuses the issue, because we have a problem with refined sugar, not with whole foods that contain natural, simple sugars.

Fruit isn’t your problem. Fruit is packed with phytonutrients and antioxidants and minerals, plus loads of soluble and insoluble fiber, to clean the digestive tract and slow down impact on blood sugar.

If you’re going to worry about sugars, worry about the isolated, concentrated kind. Not the kind you pick off a tree or vine.

What is All This Hidden Added Sugar Doing to Our Bodies?

The sugar industry is trying to wrap C12H22011 (i.e. sugar) up in pretty, natural bows by giving it names like evaporated cane juice and fruit nectar. And we are taking the bait. By the end of 2015, “alternative” sweeteners reached $1.4 billion in annual sales.4

The average American consumes 152 pounds of this sugar—including “natural” and “processed”—every year. 152 pounds! That’s about 6 cups every week! And what’s all that sugar doing to our bodies? It’s making us sick in dozens of ways.

Why is sugar bad for you?

Here are just a few of the 100-plus negative effects sugar has on your body:

Fuels addiction. Sugar stimulates the same part of our brain as opioids do: the complex reward-center that leaves us constantly seeking our next “hit”.5

Damages cells and tissues. Researchers from the University of California San Francisco conducted a study that revealed cell aging and sugar consumption went hand in hand. The protective units of DNA (called telomeres) were shorter in those participants who drank the most soda. Shorter telomeres are associated with chronic diseases of aging like heart disease, diabetes, and cancer, and are found in people that smoke cigarettes.6

Steals happiness. A study conducted by Harvard School of Public Health linked foods that create inflammation, such as sugar and refined grains, with an over 40 percent greater chance of developing depression.7

Feeds Cancer. Guess what researchers feed cancer in a Petri dish in order to keep it alive while they search for a cure? Sugar.

Ever since Otto Warburg won a Nobel Prize for discovering that sugar feeds cancer, study after study has confirmed the cause and effect.8 A cancer cell has 19 insulin receptors, compared with a normal cell’s 2–which is why cancer cells mop up sugar that’s fed to them, and grow. In fact, people undergoing scans for cancer drink a concentrated glucose (sugar) solution infused with radioactive material–since cancer cells readily uptake the sugar, the scans light up the tumors feeding on the radioactive glucose.

The sugar industry has known this connection for decades–they tried to bury their own research conducted some 50 years ago, confirming the link between sugar and cancer.9

Accelerates aging. Sugar destroys the skin’s collagen and elastin—components that make our skin strong and gives it that “bounce-back” ability. Researchers in England and the Netherlands found that those people with the highest blood sugar appeared older than those with the lowest.10

Suppresses the immune system. Once your blood sugar reaches 120 mg/dl, your white blood cell’s ability to seek and destroy bacteria and viruses is reduced by 75 percent. And blood sugar isn’t even considered “high” until it reaches 130 mg/dl!11

Damages kidneys, brain and eyes. Sugar builds up in your blood vessels and becomes like sludge when it hits your tiny capillaries. Areas in the body that rely the most on these blood vessels and are susceptible to damage include the kidneys, brain, and eyes. In fact, sugar consumption has been linked to macular degeneration—Americans’ number one cause of vision loss.12

Contributes to heart disease and strokes. Sugar stimulates the liver to dump harmful fats into the bloodstream, leading to high blood pressure and hardening of the arteries.13 In the last 25 years, Americans’ consumption of table sugar has increased by 500 percent, while their intake of fats has gone down. Yet heart disease continues to rise.14

According to Dr. Mark Hyman, the glut of high fructose corn syrup on the market has led to the most common disease in America—fatty liver. This, in turn, has led to diabetes, heart attacks, strokes, cancer and dementia.15

What’s the recommended daily sugar intake?

The American Heart Association recommends no more than 6 teaspoons of added sugar per day for women.

I recommend no added sugar.

Don’t let the sugar industry fool you with their 61+ names for hidden added sugars. It’s estimated that 74 percent of the packaged foods sold in supermarkets contains sugar.16 The good news? They haven’t started injecting our beautiful, whole fruits and vegetables with the sweet stuff…yet.

In order to help you choose foods that are free of what some refer to as the “White Devil,” I’ve listed 37 of the most commonly used words for sugar on a wallet-sized card. It’s yours for free–my way of helping you live the healthiest life possible.

–Robyn Openshaw, MSW, is the bestselling author of The Green Smoothies Diet, 12 Steps to Whole Foods, and 2017’s #1 Amazon Bestseller and USA Today Bestseller, Vibe.

Learn more about the anti-diet she followed, in a free video masterclass she teaches about how to regain your energy, ideal weight, and stable mood with a whole-foods lifestyle.

Resources

1. Jeff O’Connell. Sugar Nation: The Hidden Truth Behind America’s Deadliest Habit and the Simple Way to Beat It. New York: Hyperion, 2011.

2. Robert Lustig, “Sugar: The Bitter Truth“, University of California Television, 26 May 2009; uploaded to YouTube 20 July 2009.

3. Magalie Lenoir, Fuschia Serre, Lauriane Cantin, and Serge H. Ahmed. “Intense Sweetness Surpasses Cocaine Reward.” PLOS ONE. Public Library of Science, n.d. Web. 01 Aug 2007.

4. Alternative Sweeteners. Freedonia Group. https://www.freedoniagroup.com/industry-study/alternative-sweeteners-2819.htm

5. Thomas Kosten, and Tony George. “The Neurobiology of Opioid Dependence: Implications for Treatment.” Science & Practice Perspectives 1.1 (2002): 13-20. Pub Med. Web. 26 May 2017.

6. Norris, Jeffrey. Sugared Soda Consumption, Cell Aging Associated in New Study. UCSF. 10/2014. https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2014/10/119431/sugared-soda-consumption-cell-aging-associated-new-study

7. Inflammatory dietary pattern linked to depression among women. Harvard School of Public Health. Nov. 2013. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/inflammatory-dietary-pattern-linked-to-depression-among-women/

8. Hyman, Mark MD. Why you Should Never Eat High Fructose Corn Syrup. Huffpost. 01/2014. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/high-fructose-corn-syrup_b_4256220.html

9. Hewings-Martin, Yella PhD. Sugar and Cancer: A surprise Connection or 50-year Cover-up? Medical News Today. 11/2017. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/320156.php

10. Tracy, Betty. Caring for Your Masterpiece: Health and Nutrition. Betty’s Books. 04/2013.

11. Sugar and Your Immune System. Alternative Health Atlanta. http://alternativehealthatlanta.com/immune-system/sugar-and-your-immune-system/

12. Hitti, Miranda. High-Sugar Foods May Affect Eyesight. WebMD. 07/2007. https://www.webmd.com/eye-health/macular-degeneration/news/20070713/high-sugar-foods-may-affect-eyesight

13. Corliss Julie. Eating too much added sugar increases the risk of dying with heart disease. Harvard Health Publishing. 11/2016. https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/eating-too-much-added-sugar-increases-the-risk-of-dying-with-heart-disease-201402067021

14. Sawyer, Jodi RN. Sugar’s Sour Side Effects. Dr. Oz. 05/2012. https://www.doctoroz.com/blog/jodi-sawyer-rn/sugar-sour-side-effects

15. Whiteman, Honor. Study Links High Sugar Intake with Increased Risk of Breast Cancer. Medical News Today. 01/2016. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/304636.php

16. Hidden in Plain Sight. UCSF. http://sugarscience.ucsf.edu/hidden-in-plain-sight/#.WyDMAYpKjIU

Disclosure: This post may contain Affiliate links that help support the GSG mission without costing you extra. I recommend only companies and products that I use myself.

[Read More ...] https://greensmoothiegirl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/shutterstock_408027829-300x200.jpg https://greensmoothiegirl.com/avoid-hidden-added-sugar/

#infrared saunas #healthy

0 notes

denisalvney · 8 years ago

Text

RHR: The Ketogenic Diet and Cancer

In this episode we discuss:

A disorder of energy metabolism

Metabolic dysfunction may be a root cause

How the ketogenic diet can help

Existing research on keto and cancer

Additional evidence supporting the metabolic theory

Why keto alone may not be enough

[smart_track_player url="http://traffic.libsyn.com/thehealthyskeptic/RHR_The_Ketogenic_Diet_and_Cancer.mp3" title="RHR: The Ketogenic Diet and Cancer" artist="Chris Kresser" ]

youtube

A disorder of energy metabolism

The ketogenic diet: does it have a place in cancer treatment?

Metabolic dysfunction may be a root cause

How the ketogenic diet can help

Existing research on keto and cancer

Additional evidence supporting the metabolic theory

Why keto alone may not be enough

0 notes

shapesnnsizes · 8 years ago

Text

RHR: The Ketogenic Diet and Cancer

In this episode we discuss:

A disorder of energy metabolism

Metabolic dysfunction may be a root cause

How the ketogenic diet can help

Existing research on keto and cancer

Additional evidence supporting the metabolic theory

Why keto alone may not be enough

[smart_track_player url="http://traffic.libsyn.com/thehealthyskeptic/RHR_The_Ketogenic_Diet_and_Cancer.mp3" title="RHR: The Ketogenic Diet and Cancer" artist="Chris Kresser" ]

youtube

A disorder of energy metabolism

The ketogenic diet: does it have a place in cancer treatment?

Metabolic dysfunction may be a root cause

How the ketogenic diet can help

Existing research on keto and cancer

Additional evidence supporting the metabolic theory

Why keto alone may not be enough

0 notes

3ezentrum3-blog · 7 years ago

Text

My 10 Suppressed Natural Cancer Cures

As I have been stating in past articles the restorative/pharmaceutical possessed and controlled growth foundation don't need you to realize that as far back as time immemorial there has been modest, regular and non-poisonous remedies for disease.

On the off chance that any of these non-patentable fixes were permitted to be known to people in general everywhere at that point, thus, they would genuinely undermine the restorative/pharmaceutical possessed and controlled growth foundation's business. In this way, regardless of whether it has experienced making these fruitful elective fixes with their related professionals illicit or paying off the predominant press to power outage, overlook or scorn, notwithstanding when knowing they do as a result fix malignancy, the foundation have demonstrated that cash is more vital to them than truth.

The foundation's treatment of malignancy: chemotherapy, radiation and medical procedure to a great extent accomplish poor outcomes and growth is in this manner just a noteworthy dangerous ailment due to the concealment of the very viable shabby, normal and non-lethal fixes.

So here's my rundown of 10 smothered regular disease fixes. To be sure, this isn't a comprehensive record and you may know others. Whichever way I urge you to do your own particular research yet be careful with the think falsehood media sources with their frail contentions and deliberately forgot significant data to put forth the defense against modest, common and non-dangerous elective fixes look more grounded or conceivable. Some of them are furtively tumor foundation supported!

1. Regal (William) Rife's Cancer Machine

In the 1930's California microbiologist Royal Rife after numerous years set up together an 'all inclusive magnifying instrument' fundamentally intended to center around disease cells by distinguishing their wave recurrence of vibration being distinctive to typical cells... The general magnifying lens could then be utilized to send light emissions particular recurrence from a beam tube which destroyed and slaughtered the growth cells. This Rife called the mortal oscillatory rate which was exceptionally effective in crushing malignancy in patients. So effective, truth be told, Rife's machine restored 16 out of 16 disease patients and some had been miserable cases.

In any case, into the 1940's and 50's well into the produce of the growth machines, having set up treatment centers, Rife ended up made up for lost time in a legitimate wrangle with the foundation's enormous young men, for example, the American Medical Association. Regardless of Rife winning court cases... his hardware was at last let go, seized by the specialists for unlawful elective practices in prescription.

2. Laetrile Cancer Treatment

Ernest Krebs discovered that the secluded indigenous Hunsas individuals living at the foot of the Himalayas lived to high ages previously demise. He found that apricot pieces was particularly utilized as a part of their eating regimen, containing high vitamin B17 levels, which he hypothesized was in charge of adding to no malignancy recorded here. He made a (refined) adaptation of vitamin B17 and called it laetrile. It was discovered that laetrile or B17 wrecked the catalyst beta-glycosidase in the tumor cell's metabolic pathway and along these lines could fix growth when utilizing it as a treatment.

Terrible science (think?), governmental issues, corporate covetousness and antagonistic attention essentially demolished this extraordinary revelation from getting merited acknowledgment on the loose...

3. Harry Hoxey's Herbal Remedies

Fruitful representative Harry Hoxey in the wake of relieving his steed with growth utilized a similar glue connected home grown cure on individuals. His natural equation had made 80% progress more than 80 years. In the 1960's his center in Texas was closed down for unlawful practices... For relieving individuals of growth. A previous medical attendant working with Hoxey's cure took the treatment to Mexico which still survives today.

4. Metabolic Nutritional Therapy

This is the possibility that specific against disease nourishments can be utilized as a strict dietary administration. Again this has been profoundly fruitful yet the disease foundation only here and there specify nourishment: No cash to be made there...

5. Gerson Therapy

This takes after on from 4 in the regards that it is a type of metabolic dietary treatment, utilizing body detoxification to aid the procedure. Gerson treatment initially formulated by Max Gerson was completely perceived in congress from hearings in the 1920's yet was later struck of the record. One can accept due to the risk it postured to undermining the medicinal/pharmaceutical's organizations and less administrative incomes... on the off chance that got to people in general on the loose.

6. Otto Warburg Oxygen Therapy

Another extraordinary individual with his spearheading work in the 1930's was organic chemist Otto Warburg. He was shamefully mocked by the foundation for concocting the finding that oxygen is a situation that tumor cells don't care for. Warburg said that growth cells show in an oxygen denied condition. For what reason do you think you never know about tumor of the heart? This is on the grounds that the heart contains oxygen rich blood... This has been overlooked by the foundation.

7. John Baird Proteolytic Enzyme Therapy

At the turn of the twentieth century Scottish specialist Baird saw that amid early fetal advancement the mother's placental cells carry on like disease cells in that they indicate quick development. By pregnancy day 56, when the embryo has framed its pancreas, it produces pancreatic chemicals that turn off this quick development. So fundamentally Baird hypothesized, given that these placental cells carry on like tumor cells in that they show fast development, similar to the fetal cells, could the malignancy cells be turned off by pancreatic chemicals? The appropriate response is yes! Indeed, malignancy could be effectively treated utilizing pancreatic chemicals. In any case, despite its prosperity, the treatment was let go nullified and radiation treatment was picked by the foundation...

8. Tullio Simoncini Cancer Therapy

Splendid persevering Italian specialist Tullio Simoncini has been subjected to tremendous weights from the foundation to capitulate: regardless of the mocking and endeavors at legitimate activity he proceeds with his work today focussing on regarding tumor as an organism called Candida coming about because of a poor resistant framework. Simoncini found that antifungal treatment did not work. The arrangement was shabby as well as straightforward. He gave patients sodium bicarbonate inside through an endoscope (tube). This enables the bicarbonate to go straightforwardly to the malignancy. As specified over this incredible growth achievement has anyway been to a great extent disregarded by the tumor foundation.

9. Stanislaw Burzynski Antineoplastons

There is a motion picture accessible to see on U-Tube called "Malignancy Is a Serious Business." This honor winning outrageous genuine story film made my cry. It demonstrates how a restorative man &biochemist Dr Stanislaw Burzynski found a malignancy fix utilizing quality treatment, however needed to manage the bug of the American Food and Drug Administration who attempted to criminalize him for his practices. A multi year 60 million dollar US citizen's cash fight in court resulted... The way that he had encourage spared numerous lives, relieving some of the time even sad tumor cases was never the issue! The main problem was the way that Dr Burzynski was undermining the malignancy foundation's business...

10. Against Oxidants

The late incredible researcher twice Nobel Prize victor Linus Pauling was turned down when he endeavored to get subsidizing with his partners for additionally investigate on vitamin C and its part in battling tumor: He found that leukemia sufferers had low levels of vitamin C. At the point when these sufferers were given as often as possible high measurements of vitamin C they went into abatement (recovery)... Pauling additionally found that incessant vitamin C high dosing stops the transient pathways that growth cells use to metastasise (spread). It is unfathomable to me this could be overlooked however has been (and still is).

In rundown

The above unmistakably demonstrates that the restorative/pharmaceutical foundation has the high ground in controlling tumor. Power, political pick up and benefit are without a doubt the ulterior intentions. I would urge the peruser to do his/her own investigation and figure out how to observe: For instance, take a gander at the broad communications provides details regarding tumor and ask yourself does this have personal stake. Request that yourself who stands pick up..?

In the event that you loved perusing this article at that point go to http://www.NewParadigm.ws for more related articles including a free download PDF. NewParadigm is a gateway to change, cognizance, otherworldliness, mind, body, wellbeing, elective media and considerably more... Facilitated by Paul A Philips.

Indeed the connection is:

http://www.newparadigm.ws/

Article Source: https://EzineArticles.com/master/Paul_A_Philips/1741051

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/8404608

0 notes