CBN: Using a ketogenic diet to starve cancer

Here’s a remarkably positive new segment from CBN on how a strict low carb diet might starve cancer and treat epilepsy. The reporter is on low carb herself.

Eating a low carb diet not only reduces glucose levels (possible cancer fuel) somewhat in the body. It also reduces levels of the growth hormones insulin and IGF-1, meaning cancer cells might not get the signal to divide.

Earlier posts on low carb and cancer

1 2

66 comments

  1. 1 comment removed
  2. There is some anectdotal evidence suggesting that ketogenic diets might be beneficial in cancer treatment. A few case reports have been promising. The theory is certainly interesting. However, no clinical trials have proved benefits of this type of treatment for cancer. So, please be careful. There are so many examples where false hopes have been given to cancer patients. Insulin potentiaton therapy, which lowers blood sugar, has not been proven to be beneficial in treating cancer. Hopefully, clinical trials will give us the answer.
    Reply: #54
  3. Zepp
    Dr Feinman have some blogpost recently how sorts its out !

    It seems to me as its about insulin.. those cancer cells thats dependant on insulin to get glucose for energy is severely affected.. others how not is dependant on Insulin.. its not affected!

    http://rdfeinman.wordpress.com/

  4. Zepp
    And there seems to me that other have reveald this to?

    "Glucose metabolism could be used to selectively destroy cancer cells"

    http://www.news-medical.net/news/2004/05/15/1582.aspx

  5. Paul
    I had a friend with pancreatic cancer who went on a strict ketogenic diet (and he also tried to limit foods to organic) but it didn't extend his life.
    Replies: #7, #8
  6. Generally speaking, the network this was posted on has some credibility issues when it comes to non-faith issues. However, I have to admit that this is a fantastic (if sometimes overzealous) segment on the keto diet.

    If this topic is of interest to you, the Ancestral Health Symposium 2012 had some great speakers on the diet/cancer connection including talks by Eugine Fine, Rainer Klement, and Thomas Seyfried.

    Reply: #26
  7. b-nasty
    Sorry to hear about your friend. I wonder if he had a high-glucose diet prior to the cancer? There seems to be some evidence that pancreatic cancer is linked to metabolic syndrome/insulin resistance, which would make sense.

    I definitely don't think a KD is always a magic bullet in established cancer, but one has to come up with the logical hypothesis that what *can* work with established cancer might *prevent* a number of cancers from forming in the first place. Of course, pancreatic carcinoma is one of the most scary cancers. 95%+ don't make it through.

    Good read: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=192709

  8. Dr. Andreas Eenfeldt, MD Team Diet Doctor

    ...but it didn't extend his life.

    How do we know? It obviously did not cure the disease but did it slow it down? Would he have lived a shorter life without it?

    To know for sure we need to do controlled trials.

  9. tyler
    Seems like the world is starting to wake from its nutritional slumber! Great to see our world might be a healthier place soon.
  10. Marta
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUlE1VHGA40&feature=player_embedded#!

    Above is a link to Sloan-Kettering talk on glucose and cancer. Looks like they are definitely looking into the link to cancer,

  11. 1 comment removed
  12. Ray
    good information here:

    synopsis of Cancer as a Metabolic Disease by Thomas Seyfried

    http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=29102.0

  13. Wade Henderson
    Tyler, "Seems like the world is starting to wake from its nutritional slumber! Great to see our world might be a healthier place soon."

    Just curious, but where was the world before it fell into a "nutritional slumber"? And what year, decade, or century did it go into that slumber?

    Meaning exactly where on Earth, and when, did a few million or millions of people eat correctly.
    I'd just like to know, so I can study that those people, that location, and time, to see what the ideal diet actually is for humans.

    Reply: #14
  14. Zepp
    Didnt you know.. Sweden of course!

    It started about 1980, then was the Keymarkt food introduced, low fat, high carb, high anything els thats junk!

    I think he means that there are more sciense and awarenes about our food to day!

    So you are welcome to Sweden to visit and se how LCHF is spread! ;)

  15. Wade Henderson
    Zepp,

    "I think he means that there are more sciense and awarenes about our food to day!"

    I agree, there is much more science being introduced.

    However, I just have to believe that somewhere on Earth, there must be a group or region, of say, 1 million to 10 millon people who have stumbled upon the truth simply by trial and error.

    So I keep asking folks to point out that one place on Earth where they are eating correctly for many years and decades. I simply cannot believe that no human populations are eating correctly and that ONLY science can show us the way to a excellent diet.

    Please, a good example if you will. 1 million to 10 million people. Several decades of history if possible. Some humans must have figured it out by now.

  16. Zepp
    I think there are several places.. and they ate a different diet in every place!

    Its more likely to say that humans can live and thrive on a lot of differnt diet composisions, but if one essentiall macro or micronutrient was missing they would probably die.. or not having any babys.

    And it seems that in nordic climats they was relaying on almost animal food, in more temperated areas on a mixed diet.. and in a few places have thrived on a high vegetabel diet.

    "Whenever and wherever it was ecologically possible, hunter-gatherers would have consumed high amounts (45–65% of total energy) of animal food. Most (73%) hunter-gatherer societies worldwide derived >50% (≥56–65%) of their subsistence from animal foods, whereas only 13.5% of these societies derived more than half (≥56–65%) of their subsistence from gathered plant foods. In turn, this high reliance on animal-based foods coupled with the relatively low carbohydrate content of wild plant foods produces universally characteristic macronutrient consumption ratios in which protein intakes are greater at the expense of carbohydrate."

    http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/71/3/682.full?ijkey=392231b0a35909f...

  17. nostents4me!
    To #15
    The science says that cancer need sugar.
    The science says that cancer need insulin.
    To Docsopinion, #2 above:
    In my mind Insulin potentiation therapy to treat cancer by lowering blood sugar is
    a two edged sword as we know that cancer is dependent not only on high glucose
    but also on high insulin to grow. Lowering one by increasing the other to find an optimum can never be better than lowering both variables. But ketogenic dose just that, lowers both blood sugar and insulin. But it dosen't stop there! A treble whammy is that the insulin levels can continue to gradually reduce over several weeks, further stalling tumor growth. A forth effect if ketones are kept near the 3 mmol/l range blood sugar also drops below normal fasting range. Without ketonmeter this can hardly be achieved.

    Good control is easily achieved with the blood keton meter, a meter many of us low carbers use for weight loss and confirmation of status for long term improvement of other health issues
    .
    Trials on treating glioblastoma with ketogen diet has been done with positive results. Otherwise incurable, I believe.

    Regarding "Insulin potentiation", it has been used to treat diabetes and it is probably the very reason for the so called U-curve in diabetes survival rates when drawn as a function of HbA1C.
    Since high insulin is also a contributor to heart disease, as if it wasn't "aggressive insulin treatment would be successful and diabetics would live as long as others, my opinion. Now 75%+ of diabetes patients die in heart disease.
    See article about U-curve: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)60614-9/fulltext
    #5 Paul: I have a friend that also said that he was on a "strict ketogenic diet" but his blood sugar was not going well any more. We checked his Ketons with the target 2-3 in mind.
    Ketons were only 0.2, in spite of his "strict diet".

  18. Wade Henderson
    Zepp, I looked at your link, but I see that article from which you derive your data is written by none other than Loren Cordain, the father of the Paleo diet.

    Anyway, in that article, the only mention of which where I see anything about a current day group of people is the Australian Aboriginal people, of which, no more than perhaps 1,000 live chiefly on their orginal diet. Almost all Australian Aboriginal people eat a fairly standard Australian diet.

    Rather what I am looking for is a place on Earth where a group of people numbering 1 million or even 7 million are currently eating what would be considered a idea diet.
    After all, world population is now estimated at 7,000 million.
    Surely there must region or area where 1 million of those 7,000 million are eating ideally, or very close to that.

    I just want to know where that is. They can't ALL be eating poor diets or else one wonders whose definition of "poor diet" is being used.
    If scientists proclaim that everyone's diet is poor, then something is wrong with science, or they aren't talking about normal humans.

    I'd just like to have some benchmark by which to judge other diets. Hence my request for that area where they eat properly.

  19. CU
    Zepp said, "Whenever and wherever it was ecologically possible, hunter-gatherers would have consumed high amounts (45–65% of total energy) of animal food. Most (73%) hunter-gatherer societies worldwide derived >50% (≥56–65%) of their subsistence from animal foods, whereas only 13.5% of these societies derived more than half (≥56–65%) of their subsistence from gathered plant foods. In turn, this high reliance on animal-based foods coupled with the relatively low carbohydrate content of wild plant foods produces universally characteristic macronutrient consumption ratios in which protein intakes are greater at the expense of carbohydrate."

    However, how about current day hunter-gatherers, like the Huza and the Kitavans, who eat a70% carbohydrate diet, are slim and do not have cancer and heart disease.

  20. Kurt
    Hmmm.. but doesn't going on the ketogenic diet result into some adverse health problems? There are reports of raised lipids and cholesterol levels and acidosis (which leads to further complications). I guess it's a fair tradeoff nonetheless, cancer is really a devastating disease. My best friend's mom passed away due to cancer and I saw how it not only affects the patient, but also the whole family.

    Just an aside, please support Weight Rater. It has been featured on Yahoo! News earlier this month.

    Reply: #25
  21. FrankG
    @Wade's request for ideal diets... did you read Weston A. Price's book available free on-line?

    Nutrition and Physical Degeneration

    A Comparison of Primitive and Modern Diets and Their Effects

    Weston A. Price, MS., D.D.S., F.A.G.D.

    http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library/price/pricetoc.html

    It was written just as many of these traditional communities were being overtaken by western industrialisation, so gives a unique insight into that transition; as the diet radically changed from what had been passed down from Mother to Daughter... millenia of accumulated knowledge, gained through trial and error.

    Fair warning that this was written in the 1930's and by today's standards his choice of words may seem patronising and even racist but I do not think that was his intent.

  22. eddie watts
    kurt i think you're on the wrong website.
    this website widely accepts that cholesterol is not bad for you and raising it may in fact be very beneficial for human health across the board.

    some lipid profile changes that are viewed as *bad* by the mainstream are not necessarily bad.

  23. FrankG
    @CU -- are you saying that the "Huza and the Kitavans" eat a diet high in sugar and refined starches like so many in the rest of the world?

    @Wade -- I don't think there is any place left in this world where you can't get cola and fries with ketchup. We need to go very far back... I've seen dramatic changes just in the last 50 years but even hallowed communities like the long-living Okinawa islanders are being rapidly overtaken by the "Western" diet and its attendant health consequences.

    On the point of cola being ubiquitous: there is a Ted talk by Belinda Gates where she suggests that non-profit organisations which need to get medical supplies etc.. to remote villages could learn from Coke...

    http://www.ted.com/talks/melinda_french_gates_what_nonprofits_can_lea...

  24. FrankG
    Correction:

    in my comment 23 above "We need to go very far back." should read "We don't need to go very far back."

  25. nostents4me!
    "Ketoacidosis" is totally different to low carb ketogenic diet.
    Ketoacidosis appears in diabetics that consume more carbs than their insulin can handle or do not correct the resulting high blood sugar with insulin in time. Blood sugar exceeding 11 mmol/l and high ketones is a clear indication. Ketogen diet keeps blood sugar typically between 4 and 6.
    As soon as blood sugar reaches the upper end, close to 6 , the ketone level drops to zero on this diet. Check Jimmy Moores experience measuring both ketones and blood sugar and resumed weight loss!
    http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/ ( Ctrl F to find Blood sug leads to diagrams...)

    Re longer term safety, ketogenic diets have been tried for many years without reported side effects apart from transient tiredness when starting.
    Johns Hopkins made a study of epilepsy patients treated by the diet.101 cases had been treated to control seizures and the longest treatment time had been 8 years with no adverse effects reported, see link. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/179311.php

    There have been claims that kidney problems could result due to too much protein with ketogenic diet.
    But protein is not increased in modern LCHF diets. Fats, Salads and vegetables are increased , in essence replacing starches.

    Very short regarding high fat, the evidence says that high triglycerides combined with low HDL are riskfactors for CVD, (apart from transfats.) That profile is the the result of excess carb intake while low carb food promote lowered triglycerides and raised HDL.

    Fatty liver is also a side effect of high carb diets whenever overall food food intake is in excess as the liver then converts excess sugar/carbs to triglycerides.
    But liver fat can be reduced with both low carb diet and calorie restricted diets (or fasting).
    Only 2 weeks on either diet gave good results but the low carb group reduced liver fat nearly twice as much. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=21367948.

  26. I just wanted to point out that Dr. Fine's talk at AHS, like the blogposts on his work http://wp.me/p16vK0-ei are very circumspect and this kind of exaggerated pop culture approach may not help us. Docsopinion is right that this is anecdotal evidence at best. There are numerous examples of spontaneous remission of cancer and miraculous cures from high fiber diets, from curcumin, cinnamon and cucumber. The trashy TV shopping style of the presentation is not going to do us any good. It is also very unlikely that you will be able to starve cancer cells for glucose. (Blood glucose is regulated and many cancers overexpress the GLUT1 receptor, the insulin-independent glucose transporter. The isolated truths in this story may be overlooked, in particular, just how effective ketogenic diets are for epilepsy.
    Replies: #27, #33
  27. nostents4me!
    In response to your reply "...(Blood glucose is regulated and many cancers overexpress the GLUT1 receptor, the insulin-independent glucose transporter. ",
    please read my post #17 that particularly deals with the insulin.

    I am not saying that the method "Is working" , and most here agree that the evidence presented is purely anecdotal in case of humans.
    Since human RCTs are very hard to get done except for pharmaceutical companies, public pressure alone can bring independently funded trials and I think you agree that the anecdotal evidence presented warrants RCTs. The fact that it was presented on a large TV channel is the only reason we discuss it, which is a good thing.
    .

  28. Milla
    This is an interesting review of the available science.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3267662/

  29. Wade Henderson
    After a few responses I am getting the impression we must rely on all the "science" because apparently no where on Earth is there a group or region where from 1 million to 10 million of the 7,000 million people, who are actually eating a ideal diet.

    Thus we must not look at examples, but instead rely on intricate science to learn how we should eat.
    How will the species ever survive.
    You would have thought out of 7,000 million that at least 1 million people in some region would have gotten it right, if only by random chance.

    FrankG, I am very familiar with the vast reach of Coca Cola. For many years I lived and traveled all over the world. To some extremely remote places that few is any tourists or travelers go.
    Way out miles and miles away from towns I would come across little thatched huts selling Cocal Cola products. My favorites were the Fanta line. In a few places where none of the water, even boiled, could be trusted, I'd live for days on Fanta's sparkling water as my source of hydration.

    Having noted that, the amount of Coke or Fanta, used by those people, would not have averaged even 1 bottle a week. More like 1 bottle a month for most.

    So, without going back to places back in the 30's like Weston Price, is there no place on Earth now where people are eating correctly enmass, meaning a group or region?

    Still looking for that example so as to compare it against the high carb low fat, or the low fat high carb certitude.

  30. CU
    Frank G, you said "@CU -- are you saying that the "Huza and the Kitavans" eat a diet high in sugar and refined starches like so many in the rest of the world?"

    Evidently you have a reading comprehension problem. I never said a diet high in sugar and refined starches like so many in the rest of the world. Please re-read my post.

    By the way I misspelled the Hazda erroneously writing huza. These fellows are from Tanzania and were involved in a recent calorie study

    http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0040503?...

    Their actual carb intake is 60-70% of daily calories.

    The Kitavans have been extensively researched by the brother Swedes.

    http://donmatesz.blogspot.com/search?q=kitavans

    These is only an example of two. Today there are numerous other stone age tribes in the planet, most of them eating a high carb diet without the typical western civilization diseases.

    The fact remains that before you can make any grandiose statements about LCHF you need to satisfactorily explain the above mentioned anomalies.

    As presented, LCHF seems like a panacea. All you have to do is prove it beyond reasonable doubt or admit there are other roads to slimville and healthtown.

  31. FrankG
    @CU -- you are simplistically perpetuating the strawman argument that "a carb is a carb is a carb"... which, I have no doubt, you already know is not true

    http://sparkofreason.blogspot.ca/2011/08/comment-on-guyenet-vs-taubes... .. why I don't give a carp what the Kitavans eat

    I don't have to prove anything to you or anyone else... I have already found what works for me.

  32. CU
    @FrankG, if anything you are perpetuating the myth that there is such thing as MAD (Metabollic Advantage Dogma), thus calories don't count.

    Ridiculous! It's been proven beyond doubt that to lose weight you need to create A CALORIE DEFICIT!

    "I don't have to prove anything to you or anyone else... I have already found what works for me."

    You are so upset that your MAD is rapidly collapsing around you since you cannot explain away the Hazda and Kitavans that you have closed your brain to opposing points of view.

    Is this how you handle your personal affairs? My way or the highway?

  33. RD Feinman: Agree completely. I'm conflicted about this: glad to see such positive coverage, but not a fan of hagiography... and while there's a lot to be excited about in regards to cancer, I would much prefer a more restrained approach to setting expectations.
  34. Stipetic
    CU, you seems to be missing the point that metabolic advantage and calorie deficit are not mutually exclusive. Metabolic advantage has already been demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt in the mouse model on several occasions. Since you are discussing physical laws of nature, all species must respect them. So, it is sufficient to demonstrate this in only one species to make it true. It has, therefore metabolic advantage is true. What you are missing is that this metabolic advantage is what allows one to create a bigger calorie deficit than otherwise would be possible if it didn't exist (please bear in mind that both the in and out side of the equation is affected).

    So, for those who have rudimentary understanding of both physiology and physics, there should be no controversy in claiming a metabolic advantage while it accompanies a calorie deficit. Drop your own dogma and reverse your causation loop and it'll make sense to you too, I believe.

    Whether this metabolic advantage really matters or makes a difference is a totally different question.

  35. Stipetic
    CU, Frank G was merely saying that pointing out the Hazda and Kitavans are red herrings. They prove and disprove nothing. Not a my way or the highway.
  36. Raymund Edwards
    Thomas Seyfried is one who seems to state starving the cancer cells of Glucose is IMPORTANT !

    He is of the view that the patient will have to intially do a water only fast to acheive this and then follow a keto diet that is NOT ad libertum , But restricted in both calories and protein.

    If this is not done his studies suggest that the metabolic zone of low enough blood glucose and high enough ketones will not be obtained. High ketones alone are not sufficient .

    Some recent studies regarding Epilepsy suggest that Ketogenic diet is not the same as Fasting. Fasting brings about a much enhanced response. I would guess that an eat as much as you like keto diet would not be the same as a calorie restricted one either ..

    On another point Cancer can also ferment glutamate not just Sugar.

    some info here . Very interesting the part where DNA was transferred between cells.

    http://vimeo.com/channels/418298/54542349 .

  37. FrankG
    Thanks Stipetic, I agree with what you say. I have already covered both the "magical metabolic advantage that breaks no physical laws" and metabolic ward studies in responses to CU on the recent post "It's the Insulin, Stupid!" if he can't be bothered to read them, I'm not about to waste my time repeating them for his benefit.

    The only thing I see falling apart are these strawmen arguments which are based on ideas like "LCHF proponents say ALL carbs are bad therefore..."

    I'm off to eat my "normal" carb diet and enjoy an happier and healthier life :-)

  38. CU
    Stipetic, ALL metabolic ward studies - where subjects are interned thus better control of what they eat, and more accurate than self reported studies - have shown regardless of diet composition, all subjects lost the same amount of weight, thus no MAD.

    With clinical human studies are available,why do you need to refer to mouse studies? Neither you and I are mice.

    It's crystal clear that calories count toward generating a calorie deficit needed to lose weight.

    As a matter of fact, Drs. Westman, Phinney and Volek provide calorie guidelines in their book "New Atkins for a New You: The Ultimate Diet for Shedding Weight and Feeling Great."

    I'm baffled by some of your constant denial of the importance of calories when LCHF experts accept it.

    As far as cancer cures go - the topic of this article - while a keto diet worked for some, you cannot just ignore current stone age tribes that thrive on high carbohydrate diets and are free of western civilization diseases such as obesity and cancer. It's not just two tribes. It's many of them.

    Until you reconcile these two issues, you cannot claim LCHF is a cure all.

    By the way, I couldn't care less if you are happy eating LCHF, 50 bananas a day, the insect only diet or whatever. Good for you!

    Replies: #41, #42, #56
  39. FrankG
    Read my previous comments on Metabolic Ward studies AND look to the recently published HUMAN trail which showed up to an extra 300 calories per day being burned at rest, by those eating what was effectively an LCHF diet.

    Some people are just too dogmatic to stop and question their own long-held beliefs... it is a good job that more and more others are becoming quizzical skeptics of the status quo.

  40. CU
    @FrankG, I've read ALL metabolic ward studies and not a single one showed MAD. Provide references to your metabolic ward study that "proves" MAD.

    Human trial was not a metabolic ward study. Except for the final 3 days of each 4-week test diet period, the entire study was conducted under free-living conditions. Thus, there was no complete control of subject's food intake. On a metabolic ward study subjects are confined into a metabolic ward and researchers control what subjects are fed.

    You said "Some people are just too dogmatic to stop and question their own long-held beliefs..." Ha Ha Ha! Are you a comedian? You are the one that embraces MAD - metabolic advantage dogma - and refuses to consider other views.

    Furthermore, you have not addressed why high carb consuming primitive tribes are free from western diseases.

    Reply: #46
  41. nostents4me!
    CU: I must object . To last and previous statements.
    That calories must be reduced to lose weight is obvious and has nothing to do with the real question how to reduce calories to lose weight.

    Food carb content has significant effects on blood sugar and insulin.
    In a setting of excess food (and obesity), low carb eating has some definite metabolic advantages.

    Replacing carbs with fat has the following effects:

    1/ Lower postprandrial blood sugar elevation, proportional to replacement level.
    2/ Lower postprandrial insulin elevation, proportional to replacement level.
    3/ Lower or no postprandial hypoglycemia as a result of stable insulin in 2.

    The last item is the main low-carb metabolic advantage, today.
    In practice low carbers appreciate this as "lasting satiety" = no recurring hunger soon after meals or, importantly, after workouts. The need to check the fridge very soon after a meal or a workout becomes history with LCHF!

    Call it a "metabolic advantage" if you like, we just think it is great as it helps us to do other things than being hungry or eating more than 3 times a day.
    Protein, especially milk protein can also raise blood sugar, therefore best avoided in low carbing. Cream is fine when not in excess, it has on average 2/3 of the protein in milk.

    Carbs in other settings, looking back:
    The said low-carb "metabolic advantage" of course only applies when food is available in excess like today.
    In food shortage times survival is usually promoted by "eating as much as possible in as short time as possible" whenever available to take maximum advantage of transient food availability, and store as fat.
    It is easy to see that recurring hunger and fat storage then becomes a prime survival champion.

    There is no "metabolic advantage" in the foods, it is in our reaction to different foods, something we inherited to survive in predominant times of our history.

    When we see the delays, over- and undershoots on normal BS and insulin graphs, it really looks like "bad regulation" , but it is designed for survival, I think at least.
    I also guess that people that have evolved in places whith foods available throughout the year may also have evolved different metabolism, and if the foods were predominantly carbs they could be the ones that Wade was looking for.

  42. nostents4me!
    This is most interesting that you mention studies where people are locked up!
    When this subject was up before there was eventually agreement that the difference between LCHF and calorie restriction is that calorie restriction results in hunger while LCHF induces voluntary calorie restriction as the result of satiety.
    The consensus was that safe weight reduction on a standard (high carb) diet could safely be accomplished just by locking up the participants.

    Please check my earlier mail and I am sure you will understand the enormously different metabolic effects high carb or low carb induces in us, and the good reasons for it.

  43. CU
    nostents4me!, you said:

    "In a setting of excess food (and obesity), low carb eating has some definite metabolic advantages." Metabolic ward studies have not shown any.

    "Call it a "metabolic advantage" if you like, we just think it is great as it helps us to do other things than being hungry or eating more than 3 times a day." Is that why most LCHF gurus - with the exception of the doctor here and a few others - look like they need to lose at least 20 more lb.?

    "I also guess that people that have evolved in places whith foods available throughout the year may also have evolved different metabolism, and if the foods were predominantly carbs they could be the ones that Wade was looking for." Congratulations! You are finally beginning to see the light. keep it going.

    By the way, is your Wade, Dwayne Wade? He is not a low carber and is in great shape.

    Reply: #47
  44. FrankG
    CU -- you seem to try and draw others out with false claims like "LCHF is a cure all".. when exactly did anyone say that, other than you?

    You then try personal insults, or questioning the motivation of others, as if you think you know all about them.

    You rigidly stick to strawman arguments as if adding extra straw will make them more real.

    Fortunately there is a growing body of open-minded people who are increasingly asking questions.. I know that must shake your foundations but tough!

    I'm not about to waste my time banging my head against the brick wall of your ignorance when I can converse with reasonable and rational beings :-)

  45. CU
    FrankG:

    1. I have not drawn anybody into making any statements. You make them yourself

    2. I have not insulted anybody. You are the one who hurls accusations and personal attacks without any evidence whatsoever. All I have to do is read your last post.

    3. The FACTS are not strawman arguments. I challenge you to provide any clinical evidence to refute any of my statements.

    4. It's you who bangs his head against the brick wall of your ignorance by fanatically embracing MAD and refusing to see the FACTS!

  46. Ray
    With regard to: " ALL metabolic ward studies - where subjects are interned thus better control of what they eat, and more accurate than self reported studies - have shown regardless of diet composition, all subjects lost the same amount of weight, thus no MAD."

    Have you seen the series titled "Why are thin people not fat?". It is on youtube in 7 parts. Here is a link to part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6-A0iHSdcA

  47. nostents4me!
    Reply to CU

    nostents4me!, you said:
    "In a setting of excess food (and obesity), low carb eating has some definite metabolic advantages." Metabolic ward studies have not shown any.
    ----Reply to CU: As already explained the advantages are in the lesser hunger and feeling of fullness. Such luxury things never come into play in studies where people are locked up with set rations. Of course only calories matters then. Please read again and make an effort to get through.
    Or is "institutional weight loss" your answer to the obese?

    "Call it a "metabolic advantage" if you like, we just think it is great as it helps us to do other things than being hungry or eating more than 3 times a day."
    Is that why most LCHF gurus - with the exception of the doctor here and a few others - look like they need to lose at least 20 more lb.?
    ---Reply to CU:
    You are wrong, more people lose weight better on LCHF than any other VOLUNTARY way. Check out Jimmy Moores blog and you find that he went down then up over a few years, nearly to where ge started. Once he went on strict ketogenic diet he came down again, this year from March. I am not overweight unless you thik 183 cm and 89 kg at 66 is overweight. I started with LCHF one year ago. I had had angina for 7 years then and after one month I could walk unhindered again. I will stay strict for the best part of the rest of my life and have regained energy level that I used to be at 10 years ago.

    "I also guess that people that have evolved in places whith foods available throughout the year may also have evolved different metabolism, and if the foods were predominantly carbs they could be the ones that Wade was looking for." Congratulations! You are finally beginning to see the light. keep it going.
    ---Reply to CU: It is a pity that you don't get it. These people would in my opinion be low down on survival in same climate as most of us westernes evolved.

    By the way, is your Wade, Dwayne Wade? He is not a low carber and is in great shape.
    ---Great, pity you cannot read Swedish and find out how many other LCHF- eaters
    are in top shape and lost both weight and health problems, and athletes.
    I was too in great shape without carb- or food- restriction at all until I was ~55, when the downhill started, with proposed stenting at 59.

    ---- Since you ignored other items I raised. I gather that you agree here, else please advise.
    Regarding reference studies Diet Doctor has collected lots on this address.
    http://www.kostdoktorn.se/vetenskap/lchf-och-den-medicinska-vetenskapen/
    One thing that comes through in many of these studies, apart from better weight loss with lowcarb than with low calorie (VOLUNTARY studies!) is improved blood markers for heart disease and diabetes.
    A growing body of scientists is regarding sugar, high bloodsugar, as a principal reason for heart disease. All dietary starch is turned to blood sugar or glycogen, except of course when it is too much and it is turned to triglycerides i.e. fat.
    Try Google translate for the intro, the studies referenced are in English!

  48. CU
    nostents4me!:

    1. "As already explained the advantages are in the lesser hunger and feeling of fullness." No sir. MAD was introduced by Dr Eades, who asserted that consuming equal calories LCHF would burn more calories. There are no clinical studies supporting this assertion.

    2. "Or is "institutional weight loss" your answer to the obese?" My answer is to create an energy deficit to lose weight, not restricted to LCHF.

    3. "Check out Jimmy Moore..." Are you serious? This poor fellow is seriously overweight. He still has a looong way to go. I hope he succeeds. But if he does, it will be because he ate less calories thus creating an energy deficit, not because of MAD.

    4. " I am not overweight unless you thik 183 cm and 89 kg at 66 is overweight." Although your BMI is at the overweight level, in my opinion what really matters is body fat %. If your waist is 91.5 cm or less you are not fat. By the way, don't sell yourself short because of your age. At 75 Clarence Bass, who eats a 60-20-20 diet with most of his carbs grains, has a 5% BF http://www.cbass.com/
    Be positive!

    5. "-Great, pity you cannot read Swedish and find out how many other LCHF- eaters
    are in top shape and lost both weight and health problems, and athletes." I'm 100% sure all lost weight by creating a calorie deficit, not because of MAD. By the way, I've been in Stockholm twice and once in Gothenberg. I had no problem whatsoever communicating with the locals, who went out of their way to help me.

    6. "One thing that comes through in many of these studies, apart from better weight loss with lowcarb than with low calorie (VOLUNTARY studies!) is improved blood markers for heart disease and diabetes." Again, weight loss is a function of a calorie deficit. Once you lose weight, regardless of method, you'll have improved blood markers for heart disease and diabetes. The Kitavans, thoroughly researched by your countrymen, have an excellent health profile despite a 70% carb diet.

    7. "A growing body of scientists is regarding sugar, high bloodsugar, as a principal reason for heart disease." I agree.

    8. "It is a pity that you don't get it. These people would in my opinion be low down on survival in same climate as most of us westernes evolved." And 20,000 years ago westerners also had a low survival rate. Remember, these are stone age tribes but at one time westerners were also in the stone age.

  49. Raymund Edwards
    See these last posts as off topic to some extent !

    EG Yes many people eating carbs do not get or have epilepsy .

    But once you do and it is serious and intractable , WHAT does that then have to do with whether a keto diet should be considered or whether the special metabolic state of a keto diet could have a very beneficial treatment effect !

    Well this is the point with the cancer . So what if some group who eats a lot of carbs does not have cancer . What does that have to do with someone like in the video given three months to live ?

    NOTHING !

    The second point is with prevention and to what extent a fast or at least a periodic keto diet is helpful esp with people who have from before birth been exposed and damaged by exposure to too much glucose and overall calories ..

    Why would you tell an epileptic that a keto diet won't help them because many people who eat carbs don't get epilepsy ? Cancer ? Diabetes ? Obesity ? Neurological problems ?

    ...In fact keto diet and epilepsy proves beyond doubt that a calorie is never just a calorie . Anyone who has cared for an epileptic on a keto diet sees that dramatically at first hand !

    EG Drifting out of the metabolic state allowing serious seizures that do not terminate .

  50. Michael
    To get back on topic. FDG used in PET/CT will show tumors but also inflammation. Which underlying mechanisms are responsible for the FDG going to he inflammation ?
1 2

Leave a reply

Reply to comment #0 by

Older posts