- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: I was unaware of the metabolic approach to treating/curing cancer until now.
Posted on 3/17/23 at 9:21 pm to GumboPot
Posted on 3/17/23 at 9:21 pm to GumboPot
quote:
I shouldn't have said gone. I was using that term loosely. The professor indicated that for the metabolic approach to work well the glucose to ketone ratio needs to be 2 or lower.
The good part about theories is that they drive clinical research.
The issue is that physiology doesn't always work the way you assume.
Speaking from someone who has done many clinical research. It's imperfect.
Posted on 3/17/23 at 9:26 pm to BluegrassBelle
quote:
It was the chemo and radiation that her body couldn’t handle.
Same here. The chemo put me in the hospital more than once. Radiation was no picnic either but for me the chemo was much worse.
Posted on 3/17/23 at 9:40 pm to GumboPot
I did a very low-carb diet and some multi-day fasts during chemo for stage iv lymphoma. Doctors were pretty amazed how instantly I had no evidence of disease, after starting treatment. I read Seyfried and many others on the reasons this can make chemo more effective in some cases.
Who knows how big, if any, difference my diet made. But I tolerated the chemo well and am nearly 6 years out of treatment.
Who knows how big, if any, difference my diet made. But I tolerated the chemo well and am nearly 6 years out of treatment.
Posted on 3/17/23 at 9:42 pm to McLemore
quote:
and am nearly 6 years out of treatment.
Wonderful news.

Posted on 3/17/23 at 9:46 pm to McLemore
quote:
stage iv lymphoma.
Wonderful that you are 6 years in remission
But stage 4 lymphoma is a LOT different than pretty much any other stage 4 cancer. Many lymphomas are either curable or so treatable that you are more likely to die of heart disease or something than lymphoma once diagnosed.
Posted on 3/17/23 at 9:53 pm to GumboPot
quote:
After glucose is gone cancer cells resort to glutamine and normal cells resort to ketones.
Glucose cant be gone. Youd be dead. Some cells in your body can only survive on glucose (your brain).
Posted on 3/17/23 at 9:56 pm to GumboPot
A non-diabetic patient will have a blood glucose level of 80-110 or so, regardless of their diet (even if on a hardcore keto diet). So how would one go about “starving the cancer cells of glucose” if that is the case?
I trust peer reviewed journals over books. Preferably with double blinded random controlled trials.
I trust peer reviewed journals over books. Preferably with double blinded random controlled trials.
Posted on 3/17/23 at 10:14 pm to GumboPot
quote:
Just uses simple logic. Cancer needs glucose and glutamine. Do not provide it glucose and glutamine.
I don't know enough about this topic to even be able to have an intelligent conversation about it, but I think you have over simplified this to the point you don't understand that its not that easy. There are several factors at play, one being the stage of the cancer when it is diagnosed.
Do you think if its was as simple as you are implying there would be a lot less people dying from cancer?
Posted on 3/18/23 at 3:20 am to Cosmo
Some doctors/scientists (ie Attia, D'Agostino) have intentionally dropped their blood glucose to near zero while maintaining high ketone levels and were just fine. Obviously this is very dangerous.
As to the OP, there are some cancer cell lines that can use ketones for energy while others cannot. The presence of two ketolytic enzymes 3-hydroxybutyrate dehydrogenase 1 (BDH1) and succinyl-CoA: 3-oxoacid CoA transferase 1 (OXCT1) determine if they can or can't.
For example, the PANC-1 version of pancreatic cancer can't use ketones at all, lacking both enzymes. This would be a good candidate for treatment with very low blood glucose and combined with existing treatments.
On the other side, the Hela version of cervical cancer readily uses ketones for energy and that treatment would be ineffective or even harmful.
Either way, these non-pharmaceutical interventions will never be adopted as the standard of care in our corrupted Rockefeller owned medical system.
As to the OP, there are some cancer cell lines that can use ketones for energy while others cannot. The presence of two ketolytic enzymes 3-hydroxybutyrate dehydrogenase 1 (BDH1) and succinyl-CoA: 3-oxoacid CoA transferase 1 (OXCT1) determine if they can or can't.
For example, the PANC-1 version of pancreatic cancer can't use ketones at all, lacking both enzymes. This would be a good candidate for treatment with very low blood glucose and combined with existing treatments.
On the other side, the Hela version of cervical cancer readily uses ketones for energy and that treatment would be ineffective or even harmful.

Either way, these non-pharmaceutical interventions will never be adopted as the standard of care in our corrupted Rockefeller owned medical system.
Posted on 3/18/23 at 3:52 am to The Pirate King
I believe Steve Jobs was a lifelong vegan, not a keto guy
Posted on 3/18/23 at 5:46 am to GumboPot
quote:
However the point is to have as many healthy cells available to compete with the cancer cells for those few glucose molecules
Problem with this is cancer cells are primed to outcompete normal surrounding cells. That's why this method isn't already popular and is being published in a book for laymen instead of medical textbooks. On an eli5 level... It's why chemo works in the first place, cancer outcompetes normal cells for the poison.
Posted on 3/18/23 at 7:53 am to GumboPot
quote:
It sounds like an incredibly difficult road to take in terms of staying strong on the keto diet
Why do you say this?
Posted on 3/18/23 at 8:28 am to Cosmo
quote:
But stage 4 lymphoma is a LOT different than pretty much any other stage 4 cancer. M
Thankfully yes. But the 5-year survival rate for a lot of stage iv lymphomas is still bleak. I had giant tumors in my chest and bones. Chemo annihilated them quickly.
Posted on 3/18/23 at 8:34 am to shutterspeed
quote:
Why do you say this?
Yeah I don’t get that either.
People don’t really understand “the keto diet,” and it’s largely because of bad nutrition marketing, media, social media nonsense.
Any way of eating that takes advantage of metabolic flexibility is a “keto diet.”
There are specific clinical diets for things like epilepsy and brain cancers. But I had no issues with strength or stomach issues from my diet. I don’t gorge myself with fat. I just eat good complete proteins and after doing this for so long the rest of the macros just sort of fall where they may. The main thing is avoiding shitty foods like highly processed oils and sugar.
And I sort of naturally or by habit now eat all my calories in a small window.
People make way too big a deal about this stuff. It’s actually simple once you change your habits in the grocery store.
Posted on 3/18/23 at 8:52 am to Cosmo
quote:
Glucose cant be gone. Youd be dead. Some cells in your body can only survive on glucose (your brain).
BS.Your brain will function just fine on ketones
Posted on 3/18/23 at 9:40 am to NorCali
(no message)
This post was edited on 3/18/23 at 9:52 am
Posted on 3/18/23 at 11:36 am to SpartanSoul
quote:
BS.Your brain will function just fine on ketones
Well. Sorta. Brain requires some glucose. But your body creates it via gluconeogenesis.
Posted on 3/18/23 at 12:06 pm to McLemore
quote:
Well. Sorta. Brain requires some glucose. But your body creates it via gluconeogenesis.
No sorta to it. There will always be glucose in the blood but just because it is the primary source of energy doesn't mean it is the best or required.
Here are a few quotes from a Scientific American article.
quote:
Yet versions of the ketogenic diet have been used to successfully treat drug-resistant epilepsy in children since the 1920s – potentially even back in the biblical ages. Emerging evidence from animal models and clinical trials suggest keto may be therapeutically used in many other neurological disorders, including head ache, neurodegenerative diseases, sleep disorders, bipolar disorder, autism and brain cancer. With no apparent side effects.
quote:
So the brain is happily deriving energy from ketones – sure, but why would this be protective against such a variety of brain diseases?
One answer may be energy. Despite their superficial differences, many neurological diseases share one major problem – deficient energy production. During metabolic stress, ketones serve as an alternative energy source to maintain normal brain cell metabolism. In fact, BHB (a major ketone) may be an even more efficient fuel than glucose, providing more energy per unit oxygen used. A ketogenic diet also increases the number of mitochondria, so called “energy factories” in brain cells. A recent study found enhanced expression of genes encoding for mitochondrial enzymes and energy metabolism in the hippocampus, a part of the brain important for learning and memory. Hippocampal cells often degenerate in age-related brain diseases, leading to cognitive dysfunction and memory loss. With increased energy reserve, neurons may be able to ward off disease stressors that would usually exhaust and kill the cell.
The big takeaway shouldn't be arguing semantics and old science but to realize we have a woefully bad understanding of what the prevalence of processed foods has done to our health. The majority of nutrition studies are funded by food or drug companies. That should tell you all you need to know about the state of nutrition education. Better nutrition can drastically lower the rates of diseases and improve the effects of modern medicine.
Posted on 3/18/23 at 3:58 pm to Penrod
quote:
These were doctors long before an Medical Practitioner was considered a doctor.
Uhh, thebtitlw "doctor" has been around since somewhere in the 1300s. "Medicine" started in the US in the 1600s, while in england "medical practice" was broken down into 3 main professions: physicians, surgeons, and apothecaries. "Physicians" were considered "elite".
Google around and see when "genetics" started.
Nevermind, I'll save you the time...about 250 years after physicians.
I'm guessing you aren't a PhD in history.
This post was edited on 3/18/23 at 4:00 pm
Posted on 3/18/23 at 4:29 pm to GumboPot
Didn’t Steve Jobs try something like that?
Back to top
