61–70 of 199 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This didn't work for Steve Jobs
He wasn't fasting, he was on fruits diet.
So the cancer cells went with the non-blocking, albeit slower algorithm. With aerobic, pipelines could get filled with ATP and end up blocking the essential NAD+. So the optimization was a loosely decoupled slower fermentation process over the faster aerobic process. Back pressure avoided and all that. So tempting to go with analogies we are familiar with.
There is a relatively new theory saying that malignant, metastatic cancer cells behave like single cell organisms, and that cancer basically represents an unwanted return to our genetic roots; multicellular organisms used to be single cell organisms a billion years ago and the original genes might carry on within our DNA until today. But they should be switched off. Once they are switched on, the cells will stop coop…
Genes which are essential the the function of an organism are well conserved relative to silenced genes over long time spans.
This is because mutations happen randomly, and mutations to essential genes in the germline tend to get weeded out, while mutations to silenced genes can get corrupted without affecting the fitness of the offspring. This theory, from the way you've stated it, would require preservation of inactive genes for hundreds of millions of years, only to spring back to action in cancer cells.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He wasn't fasting, he was on fruits diet.
So what is 'allowed'? Because I have been seeing 'low calories' (fruits/carrot juice etc) to nothing, even no water to make sure your digestive system does not trigger at all. I know no-one knows this for sure, but what is the current theory?
The best way of doing this, based on years of science, would be, well, to eat nothing for 24+ hours at a time, but make sure you stay hydrated; as in, actually fast. The second best would be to seriously curb your carbs, under 30g a day; also tied for second best is to eat just once a day, none of this unscientific three square meals hogwash.
Three of these together could halt the progress of some cancers, and before the shitstorm that was 2020, scientists were publishing papers involving animal models on this.
Steve Jobs did none of these, and was, sadly, off in la-la land when someone with his money and connections could have had access to next generation scientifically-based treatments. Fruitarianism is, frankly, dangerous.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I look at this image [0] it seems to me that muslim countries (which tend to fast once a year, I guess?) and poor countries have fewer cases of cancer. But at least with the poor countries I'm not sure if it's because people die of other reasons before they even could get cancer. [0] https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-a0728f7c2418f32922558b...
That image doesn't warrant a single synapse of your thought without per capita numbers. And then you can try to find other correlations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a relatively new theory saying that malignant, metastatic cancer cells behave like single cell organisms, and that cancer basically represents an unwanted return to our genetic roots; multicellular organisms used to be single cell organisms a billion years ago and the original genes might carry on within our DNA until today. But they should be switched off. Once they are switched on, the cells will stop coop…
I'm no biologist, but I'd be surprised if this is true. Genes which are essential the the function of an organism are well conserved relative to silenced genes over long time spans. This is because mutations happen randomly, and mutations to essential genes in the germline tend to get weeded out, while mutations to silenced genes can get corrupted without affecting the fitness of the offspring. This theory, from the…
If you're not already familiar with them, you might want to look up HeLa cells:
I’m curious to see how fasting might influence cancer treatment. I know in other parts of the world it is seen as a legitimate treatment, while also potentially considered to be a hippy dippy homeopathic treatment. Anecdotally it seems you can starve certain cancers to death pretty easily by severely limiting your caloric intake. I sense a relationship between that and this study.
From a non-medical professional's perspective it doesn't seem that strange. Medical treatments for cancer include "let's slowly irradiate you and hope the cancer dies first" and "let's slowly poison you and hope the cancer dies first". "let's slowly starve you to death and hope the cancer dies first" doesn't seem all that different.
So the cancer cells went with the non-blocking, albeit slower algorithm. With aerobic, pipelines could get filled with ATP and end up blocking the essential NAD+. So the optimization was a loosely decoupled slower fermentation process over the faster aerobic process. Back pressure avoided and all that. So tempting to go with analogies we are familiar with.
"The findings suggest that drugs that force cancer cells to switch back to aerobic respiration instead of fermentation could offer a possible way to treat tumors. Drugs that inhibit NAD+ production could also have a beneficial effect, the researchers say." And hopefully that's a path to follow that will help treat/cure some types of cance? This all just barely makes sense to me, but my first question was "Does this h…
I’m curious to see how fasting might influence cancer treatment. I know in other parts of the world it is seen as a legitimate treatment, while also potentially considered to be a hippy dippy homeopathic treatment. Anecdotally it seems you can starve certain cancers to death pretty easily by severely limiting your caloric intake. I sense a relationship between that and this study.
From a non-medical professional's perspective it doesn't seem that strange. Medical treatments for cancer include "let's slowly irradiate you and hope the cancer dies first" and "let's slowly poison you and hope the cancer dies first". "let's slowly starve you to death and hope the cancer dies first" doesn't seem all that different.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He wasn't fasting, he was on fruits diet.
So what is 'allowed'? Because I have been seeing 'low calories' (fruits/carrot juice etc) to nothing, even no water to make sure your digestive system does not trigger at all. I know no-one knows this for sure, but what is the current theory?
So water and coffee or tea (without milk, of course) would be fine. You're trying to avoid an insulin response and firing up the entire machinery of digestion.
I think it's non-controversial to say that this starves the cancer cells.
Perhaps less certainly we can also say that digestion demands a lot of resources and is an interrupt for a lot of other processes. When your body has nothing to do for 24-36 hours eventually lower priority tasks get attended to ... like garbage collection.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That image doesn't warrant a single synapse of your thought without per capita numbers. And then you can try to find other correlations.
It says "rate per 100000 population" on the top right.