Does Aspirin Stop Cancer

This is a very interesting and relatively brief summary of the topic - the short answer is - "we don't know who will get the most benefit for the new risks."
http://www.healthnewsreview.org/2014/08/aspirin-and-cancer-story-more-complicated-than-many-are-reporting/

Mercola - Fructose and Cancer

Studies have shown that different sugars are metabolized using different metabolic pathways, and this is of MAJOR consequence when it comes to feeding cancer and making it proliferate. Three years ago, researchers published findings showing that fructose is readily used by cancer cells to increase their proliferation.6 Cancer cells did not respond to glucose in the same manner.

In this case, the cancer cells used were pancreatic cancer, which is typically regarded as the most deadly and universally rapid-killing form of cancer. According to the authors:

"Traditionally, glucose and fructose have been considered as interchangeable monosaccharide substrates that are similarly metabolized, and little attention has been given to sugars other than glucose. However, fructose intake has increased dramatically in recent decades and cellular uptake of glucose and fructose uses distinct transporters.

Here, we report that fructose provides an alternative substrate to induce pancreatic cancer cell proliferation. Importantly, fructose and glucose metabolism are quite different; in comparison with glucose, fructose... is preferentially metabolized via the nonoxidative pentose phosphate pathway to synthesize nucleic acids and increase uric acid production.

These findings show that cancer cells can readily metabolize fructose to increase proliferation. They have major significance for cancer patients given dietary refined fructose consumption, and indicate that efforts to reduce refined fructose intake or inhibit fructose-mediated actions may disrupt cancer growth." [Emphasis mine]

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/12/11/sugar-heart-disease.aspx?e_cid=20131211Z1_DNL_art_1&utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20131211Z1&et_cid=DM36408&et_rid=363878237

Mercola - Sugar Feeds Cancer?

"The study confirms the old adage that sugar feeds cancer because they found that tumor cells do thrive on sugar (glucose). However, the cells used fructose for cell division, speeding up the growth and spread of the cancer. This difference is clearly of major consequence, and should be carefully considered by anyone who is currently undergoing cancer treatment or seeking to prevent cancer.

"This does not mean you should avoid fruits, the benefits of most fruits outweigh any concerns to fructose. I would suggest to not juice your fruits and to eat them whole, and also realize we have bred many of these fruits to a very high level of fructose. Fruits today are many times sweeter than they were historically, and should be consumed in moderation.

"The real problem is the high fructose corn syrup that is added to practically every processed food and drink you see."
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/12/11/sugar-heart-disease.aspx?e_cid=20131211Z1_DNL_art_1&utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20131211Z1&et_cid=DM36408&et_rid=363878237

Mercola on Cancer and Ketogenic Diets

Mercola.com 20130616
The Mercola "story at a glance":
·   A ketogenic diet, which calls for minimizing carbohydrates and replacing them with healthy fats and moderate amounts of high-quality protein, can offer hope against cancer, both for prevention and treatment
·     Your normal cells have the metabolic flexibility to adapt from using glucose to using ketone bodies. Cancer cells lack this ability so when you reduce carbs to only non-starchy vegetables, you effectively starve the cancer
·     Cancer can be more accurately classified as a mitochondrial metabolic disease. Few people inherit genes that predispose them to cancer (most inherit genes that prevent cancer), and inherited mutations typically disrupt the function of the mitochondria
·     The mitochondria—the main power generators in your cells—are believed to be the central point in the origins of many cancers. Your mitochondria can be damaged not only by inherited mutations, but also by a wide variety of environmental factors and toxin
·      Fasting has remarkable health benefits and strengthens your mitochondria network systems throughout your body. As long as your mitochondria remain healthy and functional, it’s very unlikely that cancer will develop

Does sugar play a role in the ability of a cancer cell to thrive and displace healthy cells?  In many cases, this seems to be the case.  Thus, intermittent fasting would seem a valuable tool in stopping the growth cycle of cancerous cells, as would carb restriction.  There seem to be many factors in cancers, and once they reach the growth stage some do not respond well to ketogenic diets, but seem to suffer when glucose and fructose are in short supply.  
It's all pretty simple until one tries to indulge an activity like CrossFit which requires higher carb intake if one hopes to be at one's best, due to the relatively low amounts of glycogen which the body will store  when carb levels are kept at ketogenic leves (seemingly 75g/day or less for me).  At that point, intermittent fasting, carb loading once per day, and perhaps weekly carb binges may be necessary.  However, even without those, CF performance can be passable when in a ketogenic state, and most life activities are well enhanced by cyclic ketogenic eating, and as the linked article points out, this approach may hold significant protective elements for cancer prevention.   

Vitamin D - You Need More Until Proven Otherwise By Testing

This Mercola article is a great summary of the vitamin D link to cancer.

An optimal vitamin D level is critically important in minimizing your cancer risk; a study of menopausal women showed that maintaining vitamin D serum levels of 40ng/ml cut overall cancer risk by 77 percent.

GrassrootsHealth founder Carole Baggerly believes 90 percent of ordinary breast cancer is related to vitamin D deficiency; in fact, breast cancer has been described as a “vitamin D deficiency syndrome”.

Vitamin D can stop breast cancer cells from spreading by replenishing E-cadherin, one of the glue-like components giving structure to those cells.

In addition to being a strong cancer preventative, vitamin D is crucial for pregnant women and their babies, lowering risk for preterm birth, low birth weight, and C-section; 80 percent of pregnant women have inadequate vitamin D levels.

The most important factor is having your vitamin D serum level tested every 6 months, as people vary widely in their response to ultraviolet exposure or oral supplementation; your serum level should be kept between 50 and 70 ng/ml for optimal health.

Drug Free Cancer Treatment

"To some, a ketogenic diet amounts to nothing less than a drug-free cancer treatment. The diet calls for eliminating carbohydrates, replacing them with healthy fats and protein.

"The premise is that since cancer cells need glucose to thrive, and carbohydrates turn into glucose in your body, then cutting out carbs literally starves the cancer cells.

"This type of diet, in which you replace carbs with moderate amounts of high quality protein and high amounts of beneficial fat, is what I recommend for everyone, whether you have cancer or not. It’s simply a diet that will help optimize your weight and health overall, as eating this way will help you convert from carb burning mode to fat burning."

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/03/10/ketogenic-diet.aspx?e_cid=20130310_SNL_Art_1&utm_source=snl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20130310

Some facts - cancer was not present in aboriginal Eskimos, and has not been detected in large numbers in other aboriginals; until they were introduced to sugar and wheat.

The best model for cancer is that it results when a cell gains a growth advantage over neighboring cells, and does not self eliminate ("apoptosis") when damaged.  Many cancers are:

1. Highly insulin sensitive

2. Highly sensitive to IGF1 (more or less a 90 day moving average of insulin levels)

3. Dependent on sugar/fructose fermentation for energy

In other words, the model for low carb cancer treatment is at least plausible.  I sure hope they keep testing this approach.  

The obligatory "Granny Smith" story:

"CBN News recently published an article on the ketogenic diet.² Clearly, many people are realizing that what we have been doing in terms of fighting cancer is simply not working, and we cannot afford to continue in the same way. Prevention must be addressed if we ever want to turn the tide on the growing incidence of cancer across all age groups. But even more astounding, in terms of treatment, is that cancer may respond to diet alone.

“Dr. Fred Hatfield is an impressive guy: a power-lifting champion, author of dozens of books, a millionaire businessman with a beautiful wife. But he'll tell you his greatest accomplishment is killing his cancer just in the nick of time,” CBN News writes. "The doctors gave me three months to live because of widespread metastatic cancer in my skeletal structure," he recalled. "Three months; three different doctors told me that same thing."

"Dr. Hatfield was preparing to die when he heard of metabolic therapy, also known as the ketogenic diet. He had nothing to lose so he gave it a try, and... it worked. The cancer disappeared completely, and at the time of his interview (above), he’d been cancer-free for over a year."

Muscle Mass Is Cancer Prevention

Very interesting study, skip to conclusions below if you don't like (as I don't) reading geek-speak in studies.
Abstract

BACKGROUND: Several hypotheses proposed to explain the worse prognosis for older melanoma patients include different tumor biology and diminished host response. If the latter were true, then biologic frailty, and not age, should be an independent prognostic factor in melanoma.

METHODS: Our prospective institutional review board (IRB)-approved database was queried for stage III patients with computed tomography (CT) scans at time of lymph node dissection (LND). Psoas area (PA) and density (PD) were determined in semi-automated fashion. Kaplan-Meier (K-M) survival estimates and Cox proportional-hazard models were used to determine PA and PD impact on survival and surgical complications.

RESULTS: Among 101 stage III patients, PD was significantly associated with both disease-free survival (DFS) (P = 0.04) and distant disease-free survival (DDFS) (P = 0.0002). Cox multivariate modeling incorporating thickness, age, ulceration, and N stage showed highly significant association with PD and both DFS and DDFS. DDFS was significantly associated with Breslow thickness (P = 0.04), number of positive nodes (P = 0.001), ulceration (P = 0.04), and decreasing muscle density (P = 0.01), with hazard ratio of 0.55 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.35-0.87]. PD also correlated with surgical complications, with odds ratio (OR) of 1.081 [95% CI 1.016-1.150, P = 0.01]. CONCLUSIONS: Decreased psoas muscle density on CT, an objective measure of frailty, was as important a predictor of outcome as tumor factors in a cohort of stage III melanoma patients. On multivariate analysis, frailty, not age, was associated with decreased disease-free survival and distant disease-free survival, and higher rate of surgical complications.

Read more here:
HT:  http://conditioningresearch.blogspot.com/2012/02/muscle-and-cancer-it-is-not-getting-old.html

It's difficult to know without reading the whole study how they separated causality - IOW, were the folks that were more frail more frail because their cancer was detected later?  They had already had more treatment?  These obviously would confound the result, it would be nice to think they were ahead of those issues.

The BL:  the more I learn about it, the less significance cardiorespiratory endurance seems to have to health.  Strength is a much more relevant measure of health (or muscle mass, a correlate of strength).  In some ways this seems like a blinding flash of the obvious - if you have the strength to get up and down from the floor, up and down stairs and hills, can push a lawn mower, and so forth - you'll be able to be independent, mobile and active.  The fewer the restraints on your activity, the more alive you are almost by definition.  Running, or jogging, is great, but leaves a lot on the table in terms of health.  By adding squats, pushups, pullups, or any degree of strength training, you can significantly improve you chances of aging well - and apparently, of surviving illness, too.

Cancer Sugar, Again

But some researchers will make the case, as Cantley and Thompson do, that if something other than just being fatter is causing insulin resistance to begin with, that’s quite likely the dietary cause of many cancers. If it’s sugar that causes insulin resistance, they say, then the conclusion is hard to avoid that sugar causes cancer — some cancers, at least — radical as this may seem and despite the fact that this suggestion has rarely if ever been voiced before publicly. For just this reason, neither of these men will eat sugar or high-fructose corn syrup, if they can avoid it.

“I have eliminated refined sugar from my diet and eat as little as I possibly can,” Thompson told me, “because I believe ultimately it’s something I can do to decrease my risk of cancer.” Cantley put it this way: “Sugar scares me.”

Sugar scares me too, obviously. I’d like to eat it in moderation. I’d certainly like my two sons to be able to eat it in moderation, to not overconsume it, but I don’t actually know what that means, and I’ve been reporting on this subject and studying it for more than a decade. If sugar just makes us fatter, that’s one thing. We start gaining weight, we eat less of it. But we are also talking about things we can’t see — fatty liver, insulin resistance and all that follows. Officially I’m not supposed to worry because the evidence isn’t conclusive, but I do.

Is Sugar Toxic? Gary Taubes, NYT

If the conclusion intrigues you, read all of Gary's article.  It seems pretty obvious that we were not made to eat 150 pounds+ per year of sugar, and that something like 20 pounds per year, or 25g/day, might be a prudent dose.  There are a few things that we've changed as drastically as our sugar intake over the years: industrial seed oils, grain/bean agriculture, much less sleep of much lower quality, fat soluble vitamin intake, sun exposure, and a drastic reduction in physicality.  But you can see in the paleolithic cultures that went neolithic, with Westerners around to observe them, that they got the diseases we have now with just the addition of wheat and sugar to their traditional diets.  

The good news?  When you de-sugar your palate, regular food tastes much, much better, never mind the abundant benefits in how you look feel and perform.  Eat meat, vegetables, nuts and seeds, little fruit or starch, no sugar/wheat.

Fasting Weakens Cancer in Mice

Even fasting on its own effectively treated a majority of cancers tested in animals, including cancers from human cells.

The study in Science Translational Medicine, part of the Science family of journals, found that five out of eight cancer types in mice responded to fasting alone: Just as with chemotherapy, fasting slowed the growth and spread of tumors.

And without exception, “the combination of fasting cycles plus chemotherapy was either more or much more effective than chemo alone,” said senior author Valter Longo, professor of gerontology and biological sciences at the University of Southern California.

http://www.newswise.com/articles/fasting-weakens-cancer-in-mice

You can see why the scientists might be confused; first they do studies that show fat or meat or industrially processed milk proteins makes mice have cancer, then they do a study that shows fasting helps mice survive cancer.  But considering the model of cancer described in yesterday's post, in the context of the paleolithic model of nutrition, and as applied to humans and the ways that mice and humans are similar, there is a coherent picture.

What I like about this model and its apparent validity is that it implies that your most powerful cancer avoidance strategy is to eat the food your body was built for - meat and vegetables.  You don't have to sweat all the weird chemicals in the neolithic world, you don't have to be anxious about eating an occasional hotdog or piece of salami, you don't have to get freaked about eating a good piece of steak.  Instead, you eat to feel good, look good, and maintain the glycemic control that you must maintain to be healthy anyway.  In short, you do what you would do to avoid getting fat, having freaky blood sugar crashes, metabolic syndrome, high blood pressure, or heart disease.

This is a strategy which consists of eating good food that you like to eat anyway.  This is a strategy in which - if perchance you end up being wrong or getting one of the non-sugar fueled cancers - you wouldn't look back and think you wasted your energy or your time.  This is a strategy that - once you get off the sugar addiction - you end up eating the foods you like most anyway.  It's a win-win.

Another interesting cut from the linked article:

While normal cells deprived of nutrients enter a dormant state similar to hibernation, the researchers saw that the cancer cells tried to make new proteins and took other steps to keep growing and dividing.

The result, Longo said, was a “cascade of events” that led to the creation of damaging free radical molecules, which broke down the cancer cells’ own DNA and caused their destruction.

“The cell is, in fact, committing cellular suicide. What we’re seeing is that the cancer cell tries to compensate for the lack of all these things missing in the blood after fasting. It may be trying to replace them, but it can’t,” Longo said.

Cancer Sugar Again

The study found:

(a) Women who ate the most carbohydrate had a 22% increased rate of breast cancer compared to the women who ate the least carbohydrate.

(b) Women who ate the most fibre had a 9% increased rate  of breast cancer compared to the women who ate the least fibre.

That summary from this excellent blog:

http://healthydietsandscience.blogspot.com/2012/02/higher-carbohydrate-and-fibre.html

The original study here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19056583

It's just an epidemiological study, and it's not any information that is not already well known for those in the low carb world.  Still, it's nice that the epidemiologists can get funding to study this, instead of punching out another study about fat.  Why does this make sense?  Because cancers are often very sugar and insulin sensitive and derive their fuel by fermenting sugars.  If a cancer comes along (think of cancer as a cell which becomes damaged but does not go through apoptosis (automated self destruction), but cannot gain a competitive advantage against neighboring cells, then eventually it dies or just languishes.  If that same cancer is getting boatloads of sugar by which it can fuel itself, it might become the thing you die from (not with).

Cancer Sugar

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/08/040806094822.htm

Study Links High Carbohydrate Diet To Increased Breast Cancer Risk


In a case-control study of 1,866 women in Mexico, those who derived 57 or more percent of their total energy intake from carbohydrates incurred a risk of breast cancer 2.2 times higher than women with more balanced diets. Dietary patterns in Mexico are characterized by higher consumption of carbohydrates and lower intake of fat and animal protein than those in more affluent western countries.
The team of researchers from the Instituto de Salud Pública in Cuernavaca, Mexico, and the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, suggests that the association between carbohydrates and breast cancer may be related to elevated levels of insulin and insulin-like growth factor binding proteins in the blood.
“Scientists have long suspected that diet was among the factors contributing to breast cancer,” said study co-author Walter Willett, M.D., M.P.H., Dr.P.H, the Fredrick John Stare Professor of Epidemiology and Nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health. “Now, with studies like ours, we are beginning gradually to understand what elements of diet specifically are associated with the disease, and to grasp the chemical and biological processes that contribute to it at the cellular level.”
Of all the carbohydrate compounds, sucrose and fructose demonstrated the strongest association with breast cancer risk in the study. Sucrose is derived from sugar cane, sorghum and the sugar beet; it is most commonly found in table sugar and sweetened prepared foods and beverages. Fructose is a component of sucrose and is also found in fruit.
Eating sweets and starches causes a rapid rise in the body’s blood sugar levels, which in turn cues the production of insulin and triggers a biological process that ultimately can influence carcinogenesis by causing cells to proliferate.


Dietary fat – certainly a contributor to obesity – fared well in the research, showing no significant association with breast cancer risk overall.


Yup.  Although - I'd like to see how they think that dietary fat is "certainly a contributor to obesity".  And for that matter, if you ate enough fat to be fat, you still wouldn't have the cluster of other disorders - hypertension, dislipidemia, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease - that come with the standard high carb style obesity. (Minor edits 17 Jan 2012, 1250 CST)

2,000-year-old Mummy Cancer

But they also found a variety of tumors,‭ ‬measuring between‭ ‬0.03ins‭ ‬and‭ ‬0.59‭inches,‭ ‬interspersed‭ along ‬M1‭'‬s pelvis and lumbar spine.‭
Prostatic carcinoma begins in the walnut-sized prostate gland and typically spreads to the pelvic region,‭ ‬the lumbar spine,‭ ‬the upper arm and leg bones, and the ribs,‭ ‬ultimately reaching most of the skeleton.‭
Agonising end: The mummy, known as M1, was a 5ft 5ins adult male who died a painful death at the hands of the disease aged between 51 and 60
Dr Prates and colleagues‭ ‬considered other diseases as alternatives.‭ ‬But‭ ‬M1‭'‬s sex,‭ ‬age,‭ ‬the‭ ‬distribution pattern of the lesions,‭ ‬their shape and density,‭ ‬strongly argued for prostate cancer.
'It is the oldest known case of prostate cancer in ancient Egypt and the‭ ‬second‭ ‬oldest case in history,‭' Dr ‬Prates said.
The earliest diagnosis of‭ ‬metastasising prostate carcinoma came in‭ ‬2007 ‬when researchers investigated the skeleton of a‭ ‬2,700-year-old Scythian king who died,‭ ‬aged‭ ‬40 to 50,‭ ‬in the steppe of Southern Siberia,‭ ‬Russia.‭
'This study shows that cancer did exist in antiquity,‭ ‬for sure in ancient Egypt.‭ ‬The main reason for the scarcity of examples found today might be the lower prevalence of carcinogens and the shorter life expectancy,‭' ‬Paula Veiga,‭ ‬a researcher in Egyptology,‭ ‬told Discovery News.
Moreover,‭ ‬high-resolution CT scanners,‭ ‬able to detect tiny‭ ‬tumors‭ only ‬became available only in‭ ‬2005., which suggests earlier researchers may have missed them.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2057026/Prostate-cancer-2-000-year-old-Egyptian-mummy.html#ixzz1icLxS39d

IOW - the diseases of the West are probably better termed "Post agricultural disease cascade."

Note on Cancer Ketone Relationship

Interesting collection of notes which is consistent with other materials I've read.  It makes a case for intermittent fasting, low carb intake most days, and in short - comports well with the Paleolithic model of nutrition.

http://her2support.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=39588

Thomas Seyfried–“Ketone Bodies and Cancer”

• Most brain tumors are untreatable and patients die from the pressure build-up
• Calorie restriction is necessary for treating brain tumors
• The mitochondria are dysfunctional in human brain tumors
• Otto Warburg noted that cancer leads to irreversible damage
• Tumor cells are unable to shift from feeding on glucose to ketones
• Cancer is more of a metabolic disease than a genetic one
• There’s an 80% reduction in tumor weight when calorie-restricted
• Calorie-restriction one of the most powerful therapies for killing cancer cells
• As glucose is decreased, cancer cells reduce as well
• A low-carb, calorie-restricted diet is better than the best drug therapy for cancer
• Ketogenic calorie-restricted diets have reduced brain tumors in mice and humans
• Blood glucose remains too high on an unlimited calories low-carb diet to treat cancer
• Calorie-restricted low-carb diets create adequate ketones for treating brain tumors
• Ketogenic, calorie-restricted diets don’t cure cancer, but they come close
• Tumors can’t grow when calories are cut to create ketones
• Limiting carbs and calories puts you in the zone of managing tumor growth
• Brain cancer in children can be treated with ketogenic diets by reducing glucose
• Avoid radiation therapy if all all possible–ketogenic, calorie-restricted diet is best for cancer

Dr. Eugene Fine–“Reduced Carbohydrates in Aggressive Resistant Tumors (RECHARGE Trial)”

• Not all cancers are dependent on glucose for growth, including prostate cancer
• Hyperinsulinemia is a major cancer risk factor–that’s why reducing insulin in paramount
• It’s plausible that reducing insulin secretion could inhibit cancer growth
• The typical American diet contains 300-400g carbs daily–spiking insulin
• Cut the carbs and you’ll cut the insulin and reduce your cancer risk
• You don’t want an insulin knockout (Type 1 diabetes), but rather an insulin knockdown
• A low-carb diet provides the proper control of insulin without eliminating the good it does
• Reduced carb diets have not demonstrated adverse effects up to 2 years as a medical therapy
• Humans were built as hunter-gatherers to be in a ketotic state most of the time
• Fasting is in our ancestral biochemistry with no ill effects
• There is no known dietary requirement for carbohydrate in your diet
• Grains and vegetables are only a relatively recent addition to the human diet
• A very low-carb diet changes the metabolic environment where cancer would grow
• Too many people are living outside of a sustained ketogenic state leading to more cancer
• RECHARGE Trial used very low-carb diet on 10 patients who failed on chemotherapy
• The study placed the participants on a very low-carb ketogenic diet for 28 days
• Average daily intake consumed by study patients was 27g carbs and 1236 daily
• All of the study participants were ketotic
• Future direction of research will be a larger study using ketogenic diets–funding needed

Low Mouse Carb, Low Mouse Cancer

Since cancer cells depend on glucose more than normal cells, we compared the effects of low carbohydrate (CHO) diets to a Western diet on the growth rate of tumors in mice. To avoid caloric restriction-induced effects, we designed the low CHO diets isocaloric with the Western diet by increasing protein rather than fat levels because of the reported tumor-promoting effects of high fat and the immune-stimulating effects of high protein. We found that both murine and human carcinomas grew slower in mice on diets containing low amylose CHO and high protein compared with a Western diet characterized by relatively high CHO and low protein. There was no weight difference between the tumor-bearing mice on the low CHO or Western diets. Additionally, the low CHO-fed mice exhibited lower blood glucose, insulin, and lactate levels. Additive antitumor effects with the low CHO diets were observed with the mTOR inhibitor CCI-779 and especially with the COX-2 inhibitor Celebrex, a potent anti-inflammatory drug. Strikingly, in a genetically engineered mouse model of HER-2/neu-induced mammary cancer, tumor penetrance in mice on a Western diet was nearly 50% by the age of 1 year whereas no tumors were detected in mice on the low CHO diet. This difference was associated with weight gains in mice on the Western diet not observed in mice on the low CHO diet. Moreover, whereas only 1 mouse on the Western diet achieved a normal life span, due to cancer-associated deaths, more than 50% of the mice on the low CHO diet reached or exceeded the normal life span. Taken together, our findings offer a compelling preclinical illustration of the ability of a low CHO diet in not only restricting weight gain but also cancer development and progression.

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=24317332

Interesting, of course, if not conclusive - and though not conclusive, it fits quite well with the Paleolithic Model of nutrition, in which high carb intakes like those associated with the "Western Diet" provide a novel adaptive demand to the human genome and might easily be assumed to be destructive.
(Minor edits, 4 Jan 2012, 2148)

The Dark Side of Mercola

This is the sort of speculation and faux judgement disguised as insight and wisdom, up with which, I will not put (with apologies to Sir Winston C):  http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/10/21/seeing-red-over-pink-the-dark-side-of-breast-cancer-awareness-month.aspx

I have plenty in common with the good doc on the idea of carb restriction, and frequently enjoy his articles.  The ill logic in this article does not inspire confidence in the doctor's commitment to truth. 

First, he quotes some organization that finds that blaming any victim is wrong, even if the victim is to blame.  "Truth" anyone?
"Imperial Chemical Industries has supported the cancer establishment's blame-the-victim attitude toward the causes of breast and other cancers. This theory attributes escalating cancer rates to heredity and faulty lifestyle, rather than avoidable exposures to industrial carcinogens contaminating air, water, food, consumer products, and the workplace."
~ Cancer Prevention Coalition

Next, he delivers this pablum:
The primary causes of breast cancer: nutritional deficiencies, exposure to environmental toxicity, inflammation, estrogen dominance and the resultant breakdown in genetic integrity and immune surveillance, are entirely overlooked by this fixation on drug therapy and its would-be "magic bullets" and the completely dumbed down and pseudo-scientific concept that "genes cause disease."
This logic is as circular as the arguments which is critiques.  Sure, genetic susceptibilities determine how the neolithic lifestyle will be expressed as disease, but they do not seem to be the cause of disease itself.  That said, there's still no evidence, despite years of protestation to the contrary, that "environmental toxicity" is a special driver of disease.  If you are a greenie, though, industry sure is a convenient target.

This is another absolute jewel of logic:
On first account, a pharmaceutical "cure" is as unlikely as it is oxymoronic. Drugs do not cure disease anymore than bullets cure war.
First off, if you have enough bullets, the other guys are not likely to make war on you in the first place as our history demonstrates fairly convincingly.  Secondarily, if there's a war, bullets are a essential to ending it.  We can argue to the semantics of whether or not ending a war is a "cure" - but unless the analogy implies that we have to get rid of every weapon every rock, every pointed stick to "cure" war, this is as meaningless a slogan as JFK's signature "Ask not what your country can do for you" line.  Pure propaganda.

Billions of dollars are raised and funneled towards drug research, when the lowly turmeric plant, the humble cabbage and the unassuming bowl of miso soup may offer far more promise in the prevention and treatment of breast cancer than all the toximolecular drugs on the market put together.
Hey, I have my own frustrations with the focus on creating powerful drugs to fix that which neolithic diets break.  But there's an easy solution here - find someone to fund a big intervention study to test this conjecture, and until then, quit whining.
Which brings us to this fabulous display of the complete abandoment of logic and scientific proof as regards advancing the understanding of the cause of disease:
Have we really come to the point where the common sense consumption of fruits and vegetables in the prevention of disease can so matter-of-factly be called into question? Do we really need randomized, double-blind and placebo controlled clinical trials to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that our bodies can benefit from the phytonutrients and antioxidants in fruits and vegetables in the prevention of cancer?
Well, heck no, let's use strongly held belief and years of vegetarian propaganda as proof instead!!!  I've looked and can still find no reason to believe that fruits and vegetables, organic or otherwise, are a magic bullet for health.  Do you need some fruit and veg?  Sure, have some.  Do they taste good?  Heck yes, I love to eat them.  Are they less harmful than twinkies?  Sure seems like it to me, since they don't flood the body with sugar and omega 6 fats and transfats.  Are they essential to good health?  Nope.  And that's a good thing because there's nothing more destructive or toxic to the environment than industrial scale production of fruits and vegetables.
You can find populations who rarely if ever ate fruits and veggies and they looked and lived about as well as the paleo populations who had full (if seasonal) access to fruits and veggies. 
What it seems to boil down is that the fruitnicks have said "fruits and veggies are health's magic bullets!" so many times and for so long that the masses have bought into that strongly held belief as strongly as they bought into the low fat nonsense.
Just when I'm ready to boycott the Mercola site once and for all, this article delivers this stunner:
GrassrootsHealth is changing the current Breast Cancer Awareness Month to Breast Cancer Prevention Month with a focus on taking action to prevent breast cancer with vitamin D testing and education.

"It's time to take action, women are already fully aware of breast cancer and its consequences," says Carole Baggerly, director of GrassrootsHealth. "When you can project that fully 75 percent of breast cancer could be prevented with higher vitamin D serum levels, there is no justification for waiting to take preventive measures such as getting one's vitamin D level up to the recommended range of 40-60 ng/ml (100-150 nmol/L)."

According to Dr. Cedric F. Garland of the Moores Cancer Center and the UCSD School of Medicine:

"This will potentially be the most important action ever conducted toward prevention of breast cancer. The more women who participate in this study, the greater the chance that we will defeat breast cancer within our lifetimes."

Women across the world are invited to enroll in a 5-year Breast Cancer Prevention Study initiated by GrassrootsHealth. To be eligible to enroll, you must be at least 60 years of age and have no current cancer. A free vitamin D home test kit will be provided for the first 1,000 women to enroll. The study aims to fully demonstrate health outcomes of vitamin D serum levels in the range of 40-60 ng/ml (100-150 nmol/L) and will examine the occurrence of breast cancer among a population of women 60 and over who achieve and maintain a targeted vitamin D serum level in the bloodstream. In addition to breast cancer prevention, short-term effects of vitamin D such as hypertension, falls, colds and flu will also be tracked. More information can be found at www.grassrootshealth.net.

Brilliant!

Treat Cancer With Exercise

The advice that cancer patients should rest and take it easy is clearly outdated given the myriad of research showing that regular physical activity can improve health by leaps and bounds, even while you're undergoing treatment. The new recommendation -- that cancer patients and cancer survivors should exercise at least 2.5 hours a week -- comes from a new report by Macmillan Cancer Support, which gives a comprehensive overview of exactly why exercise is so important.
http://fitness.mercola.com/sites/fitness/archive/2011/09/02/the-new-natural-wonder-drug-for-cancer.aspx

So maybe it works, maybe it doesn't, but I'm betting it does - and I also don't think it matters.  Part of the issue for cancer folks is getting past the pretense of certainty.  Whether the exercise helps you survive or not, it helps you feel better.

Amanda Miller, Again Faster, the Sun, And You

A longish post, stay with it.  The BLUF:  lack of sun exposure is more dangerous than sun exposure.  Like economists, we must consider not just what is seen but what is unseen in evaluating cost/benefit.

On April 23, 2010, CrossFitter and Games athlete Amanda Miller passed away after her battle with melanoma. In memory of her life and friendship, Dave Lipson wished to give back.  Dave's tribute to Amanda is simple: He's backsquatting at least 450 pounds, every day for a year.  Dave is seeking to raise awareness of skin cancer and it's dangers, and we're here to help.  By purchasing a shirt below, you're supporting Dave, Amanda, and skin cancer research. 100% of the profits from the sale of the Amanda Miller/365 Days of Squatting T-Shirts will go to the Melanoma Research Foundation, an organization dedicated to finding a cure for melanoma. Please visit 365 Days of Squatting for more information.  http://www.againfaster.com/amanda-miller-apparel/

Amada's story was poingnant - CrossFit Games athlete in 2009, dead from skin cancer in 2010.  The first WOD of the 2010 Games was named in her honor, and I love that Again Faster and Dave Lipson are making this tribute. 
Amanda's case reminded me of this bit of conjecture from Dr. Mike Eades' blog:
I touched on the idiotic extremes the dermatology mainstream have adopted to discourage people from spending time in the sun.
It’s worse than I thought.
Not long after posting, I came across a McClatchy column in our local paper pushing the perspective of most dermatologists, a perspective that’s so unbelievable that it almost reaches comedic proportions. (Our local paper requires paid registration, so I’ve linked here to a paper that doesn’t.) The piece serves to show in spades the way dermatologists think (if that’s what you call it), and lets us know why their advice should be taken with a huge grain of salt.
More:
But what about vitamin D?  A lowly SPF 8 reduces vitamin D synthesis by 90 percent, so your sunscreen-slathered walk from the car to the store gains you no vitamin D. Where should you get it?  Well, if you ask the question, the good doctors start finger wagging.

And don’t make the vitamin D argument, which says sun exposure is necessary to absorb the highly important vitamin. Just take a vitamin supplement

Okay.  But Dr. Holick writes

when you are exposed to sunlight, you make not only vitamin D but also at least five and up to ten additional photoproducts that you would never get from dietary sources.

The bottom line:
68,720 melanomas, which are malignant, are much more attention getting.  But, there is no evidence that excess sun exposure causes melanoma, while there is data showing that chronic sun exposure and vitamin D seem to prevent it.
Just for grins, let’s go along with Jane and assume that melanoma is caused by the sun.  If we go to the latest cancer statistics from the American Cancer Society (ACS), we find that 8,700 people died last year from melanoma.  We know that sun exposure and vitamin D (along with maybe the other 5-10 photoproducts we synthesize from sun exposure) help prevent breast, colon and prostate cancer.  If Jane is correct and we avoid the sun, we run less risk of being one of the 8,700 people who perish from melanoma. But what about the other side of the coin?
According to the same ACS statistics, last year 40,230 people died from breast cancer, 32,050 from prostate cancer and 51,370 from colon cancer. So, on the one hand, we have 8,700 people die of a disease that probably isn’t related to sun exposure while on the other we have 123,650 who died from cancers known to be related to lack of sun exposure.  I don’t know about you, but I’ll go with the sun exposure, “disfiguring” superficial skin cancers be damned.
Plus, we didn’t even mention the devastating disease multiple sclerosis, a disease much more common in those with little sun exposure.  There are between 250,000-350,000 new cases of MS diagnosed each year. I’ll be happy to accept the risk of a few minor cancers to significantly reduce my risk of developing MS.
The danger of too much sun is minimal – the danger of too little sun is enormous.  I know which side I come down on.  
In terms of our current discussion, we could say, "Don’t be skin-cancer-wise and colon-breast-prostate-foolish."

And As Long As We're Talking About ...

... something as horrifying as cancer, here's another:

So it's disappointing news indeed that the Food and Drug Administration has deemed that tomatoes, so rich in antioxidants and other good things such as beta carotene, may not protect against many types of cancer after all, as some earlier studies had found.

The agency responded Tuesday to applications from two tomato-product groups, including H.J. Heinz Co., which planned to tout the anticancer benefits of tomatoes on their product labels. After a review of dozens of studies, however, the FDA found that there was "very limited evidence" to support any association between tomato consumption and reduced risks of prostate, gastric and pancreatic cancers. As for the believed cancer-fighting effects of lycopene, the key anti-cancer fighting ingredient in tomatoes, the FDA was even more discouraging, saying there was "no credible evidence" to suggest that the chemical could reduce the risk of such cancers of the prostate, lung, colon, breast, ovaries or pancreas.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1642152,00.html#ixzz1WRTkcKlu

I'm all for ditching the FDA, which mainly serves to re-enforce the bond between government and the government crony capitalists we all depend upon to supply our food and medicine.  But if they are going to reel in this kind of "inconclusive science", I sure wish they would do that with all the other inconclusive science.  There's no conclusive science on the benefit of a low fat fad diet, for example, but the FDA does not typically trumpet that when they are trying to get you to eat less meat and more grain and 300 servings of fruits and vegetables every five minutes.  But hey, what could go wrong with a diet that requires mankind to destroy the ecosystem through plowing, poisoning and dumping oil (ammonium nitrate) all over creation in order to provide mankind with an amount of vegetables and grain, and their industrial by products ("vegetable oils" and soy products and grain products, processed to kingdom come) that are completely novel to the genome?  Why would anyone need research to know THAT'S A GREAT PLAN!  OF COURSE IT IS A GREAT PLAN!

(Please forgive that temporary digression, we'll now return to our regularly scheduled blog post)

As to the tomato theory of cancer prevention, when I read about some magic ingredient that's going to save us all from everything, it always makes me step back and ask: "Why did cancer prevalence follow the advent of agriculture around the world?  Could this ingredient be connected to the paleolithic model?" 

If an ingredient no kidding prevents illness, I don't care what its place in any model is.  But in general, most of the claims of magic dietary bullets are proved false - no proof that anti-oxidant intake benefits real humans and/or "protects" from cancer; no proof high fiber intake benefits humans and/or "protects" from cancer; no proof that high fruit/vegetable intake benefits humans and/or "protects" from cancer.  In fact, some studies show the opposite is as likely - deliberate feeding to get more nutrients quite likely feeds cancers.  The only strategy that works across all species, humans too, for extending life, which by default means reducing the incidence of cancers, is under feeding.  In theory that indicates that any diet which reduces intake without resulting in chronic nutrient deficiency is the diet most likely not to interfere with the healthy expression of the human genotype, in which people live well, and live into their 80s with normal function.

Sometimes, the magic ingredient is just the ingredient that we've processed out of our diets, or eliminated through modernity - like vitamin K (grass fed beef or wild caught fish liver, anyone?), or vitamin D (yes, complete elimination of "cancer causing sunlight" does cause cancer), all the other vitamins (present in adequate amount in paleolithic foods, and not subject the "anti-nutrient" qualities of neolithic foods), or magnesium (used to get all we could stand in the water, now we get none).  Most of the time, the magic ingredient does no good at all upon further review - exempli gratis:  fiber, additive anti-oxidants, and lycopene.  And this makes perfect sense.  The genome is not likely to be adapted to and/or manipulable by some strange, exotic ingredient. 

So here's the question for those who have actually read this far, which I'm sure most of you are on to in any event - what's the most nutrient dense diet, which does the best job of managing appetite, and therefore allows you to most easily eat the least amount of food while getting the minimum required amounts of essential nutrients? 

I know there's not much drama here because you read this so often:

Meat, vegetables, nuts and seeds, little fruit or starch, and no sugar/wheat.

A High Fat Anti Cancer Approach

This is an approach with an obvious theoretical back ground:

The theory is simple: If most aggressive cancers rely on the fermentation of sugar for growing and dividing, then take away the sugar and they should stop spreading. Meanwhile, normal body and brain cells should be able to handle the sugar starvation; they can switch to generating energy from fatty molecules called ketone bodies — the body's main source of energy on a fat-rich diet — an ability that some or most fast-growing and invasive cancers seem to lack.

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1662484,00.html#

But there's a huge problem - it is extremely hard to test the efficacy of this diet with any scientific rigor.

...most people in the study are faring very badly to begin with. All have exhausted traditional treatments, such as surgery, radiation and chemo, and even some alternative ones like hyperthermia and autohemotherapy. Patients in the study have pancreatic tumors and aggressive brain tumors called glioblastomas, among other cancers; participants are recruited primarily because their tumors show high glucose metabolism in PET scans.

But even though the current study is only being tested on folks in the final stages of their disease:

...five patients who were able to endure three months of carb-free eating, the results were positive: the patients stayed alive, their physical condition stabilized or improved and their tumors slowed or stopped growing, or shrunk. These early findings have elicited "very positive reactions and an increased interest from colleagues," Kämmerer says, while cautioning that the results are preliminary and that the study was not designed to test efficacy, but to identify side effects and determine the safety of the diet-based approach. So far, it's impossible to predict whether it will really work. It is already evident that it doesn't always: two patients recently left the study because their tumors kept growing, even though they stuck to the diet.

Similar research is coming, finally:

... study similar to the trial in Würzburg is now under way in Amsterdam, and another, slated to begin in mid-October, is currently awaiting final approval by the ethics committee at the University Hospital in Tübingen, Germany. There, in the renowned old research institution in the German southwest, neuro-oncologist Dr. Johannes Rieger wants to enroll patients with glioblastoma and astrocytoma, aggressive brain cancers for which there are hardly any sustainable therapies

On Jimmy Moore's Living La Vida Low Carb Show, an interesting "prophylactic effect" was proposed - a "seven day therapeutic fast" to "really" deprive possibly budding cancers of their sugar, thus killing them before they reach a true growth stage.  This comports with the model of cancer as follows:  cancers are primarily cells with mutate in ways that, one, allows them not to self terminate when damaged as normal cells do (apoptosis), and two, gain a growth advantage over competing cells (for example, the ability to fuel rapid growth via higher insulin and/or IGF1 sensitivity (more receptor sites), along with a unique capacity to utilize glucose (fermentation).  Thus, even in a culture that is literally soaking itself in sugar day and night, this would make surviving cancer cells a rare event, and one which might be interrupted by a fast.  In keeping with the paleolithic model, too, we know that fasting was neither uncommon or particularly bad for paleolithic peoples, who had great bones, great teeth, and long lives in spite of - or because of? - unpredictable fasts.

@dreades tweeted the link above as a response to what was presumably some indication that Steve Jobs is suffering from cancer.  I don't know if it would help, but it seems like an altogether harmless suggestion for anyone in a cancer battle, especially if you follow the Perfect Health Diet's approach of a "high carb" (relatively) approach for ketogenic metabolism.     

Grass On Cancer

“Cancer, like insanity, seems to increase with the progress of civilization.”

Stanislas Tanchou

Stanislas Tanchou was a physician who, following his service with Napoleon, entered private practice and studied the statistical distribution of cancer. Tanchou presented his complex statistical examination of malignancy to the Paris Science Society in 1843 (1). He documented evidence of increased malignancy with increased civilization. One of the prime indicators of a civilizing trend was a diet that included sugar and white flour. The greater the consumption of these foods, the greater the incidence of malignancy.
Tanchou was the first of many physicians to document what have been called "Western Diseases" or "Diseases of Civilization." The incidence of several diseases, including cancer, increases in direct proportion to the "civilization" of a nation and its people. Evidence has continued to accumulate that as populations shift from their traditional diets to diets that contain refined carbohydrates, diseases which had not been present begin appear. And as the amount of refined carbohydrate in their diet increases, the incidence of these diseases increases. This pattern has been observed in populations on every continent.
Richard Doll (the man that proved the link between cigarette smoking and cancer) and Richard Peto’s 1981 paper “The Causes of Cancer: Quantitative Estimates of Avoidable Risks of Cancer in the United States Today” made the following points: (2)"At least 75 to 80 percent of cancers in the U.S. would be avoidable with appropriate changes in diet and lifestyle.

"Food additives, pollution and occupational exposures play a minimal role.

"Diet plays the largest role – from 10 to 70 percent of all cancer."
Couple these points with the wealth of information about what causes Western Diseases and you’ll find what constitutes a cancer-avoiding diet – one that is low in carbohydrate.

http://grassbasedhealth.blogspot.com/2010/06/grass-and-cancer.html

And lucky for us, low carb diets (when manifested as grass farms upon which livestock may be grown) may be the only sustainable diets, and are by far the best diets in terms of impact on the "environment."  Low carb diets require no pesticides, no ammonium nitrate, relatively little if any irrigation, and act as a carbon sink rather than carbon emitters (if you care about that sort of thing).