Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fasting improves chemotherapy results and protects from side effects: study

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 219 posts

Re: Fasting improves chemotherapy results and protects from side effects: study

#191

Post by markus92 »

blithedale wrote: post #180
markus92 wrote: post #27

Interesting study with, as always, a lot of caveats. The most we can take from this is that it's worth to study more, the effect is existing but not extreme. I don't get the submitted title here claiming that it protects from side effects. The study does not mention this at all, just that the side effects are similar despite omission of dexamethason in the fasting arm of the trial - it increases appetite, so makes se…

I'm not convinced the 2/3 dropout rate of the FMD didn't simply select for people with less aggressive tumors, given that the Intention-To-Treat analysis found no difference in response rate, and that this paper is telling a nice story that actually happens to reverse cause and effect. Basically, this? HAS AGGRESSIVE TUMOR ---> CANNOT DO THE FMD HAS SLOW-GROWING TUMOR ---> ABLE TO MAINTAIN FMD Since you're researcher…

That could very well be a possibility and something that researchers need to address if they wish to investigate this effect a bit further. We can make some educated guesses based on the supplemental table 3. Looking at the staging, grading, tumortype and the hormone receptor status, there don't seem to be any significant differences between the compliant and non-compliant groups. We know that those are the most important factors in assessing how aggressive a breast tumor is, with distinct treatment options and overall survival. So based on this information, I'm inclined to say the cause/effect is not reversed.

Of course, there could be some factors determining aggressiveness and response to chemotherapy that we do not know yet. Unfortunately I'm not in regular patient contact so can't say a whole lot about typical side effect profiles of chemotherapy, but I've heard some anecdotal evidence that for patients treated with immunotherapy, the more severe the side effects, the better the response.

Re: Fasting improves chemotherapy results and protects from side effects: study

#192

Post by markus92 »

blithedale wrote: post #170

ARGH. ARGH ARGH ARGH. Almost no one reads these papers when stuff like this gets posted on HN. And there is shameful statistical fuckery afoot in this paper. People are only repeating the hype statistics at the top of the paper. Their "pathological response" rates touted at the top of paper only come from the 1/3 of women able to actually carry out the diet. This is the "per-protocol" language in the abstract. An hon…

That's absolutely right and it's a major problem of this study. There is one caveat though, in the most common ER+ breast cancer, radiological response is more predictive of survival than pCR. And in this study, they do observe a better radiological response in the fasting group, even when looking at ITT (though just barely significant).

Re: Fasting improves chemotherapy results and protects from side effects: study

#193

Post by hourislate »

me_me_me wrote: post #79
hourislate wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have fasted 100 lbs away over the last 2 years. I adhere to an 18/6 time delay eating schedule but have done 2-3 day fasts with 1 refeed meal for a month at a time. I've also done countless 5-7 day fasts. I've gone as long as 12 days with nothing but water. There were many months where I could count the number of times I ate on one hand. My last go was every other day with just one meal on my eating days. I did tha…

> I've gone as long as 12 days with nothing but water. This is dangerous and please don't encourage others to do only water fast. Pure water fast is dangerous beyond 4 days or so. You need to supplement minerals while on per-longed fast. Salt, magnesium and potassium are vital to regulatory processes in your body. When your body uses up all reserves it will not be able to sustain those processes. It is serious busine…

I agree, a 12 day fast is dangerous and unnecessary. I was experimenting and would never do it again. Anything longer than a 3 day fast (72 hours) is not necessary.

Re: Fasting improves chemotherapy results and protects from side effects: study

#194

Post by markus92 »

keithwarren wrote: post #98
markus92 wrote: post #27

Interesting study with, as always, a lot of caveats. The most we can take from this is that it's worth to study more, the effect is existing but not extreme. I don't get the submitted title here claiming that it protects from side effects. The study does not mention this at all, just that the side effects are similar despite omission of dexamethason in the fasting arm of the trial - it increases appetite, so makes se…

My wife is Stage 3, ++- (43 yo) and half way through the taxol phase of an ACT regimen; she is progressing well but I know she has the discipline to do a fasting diet if we thought it would help. Any thoughts on starting this mid-way through the treatment?

I'm sorry to hear that about your wife and wish her all the best. As I'm not a medical professional and don't know your wife's exact situation, I'd say it'd be best to bring it up with your wife's oncologist that you'd like to give it a shot. I doubt they'd object for trying it for a cycle or two, but they know best.

Re: Fasting improves chemotherapy results and protects from side effects: study

#195

Post by Cro_on »

PoachedSausage wrote: post #124
Cro_on wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

woow, other comment recommending fifteen day fast is a) dangerous and b) doesn't answer your question?? i fast twice per week for ~30 hours and drink copious amounts of tea and coffee. but intermittent fasting also works, the really important information is that ketosis can begin after as little as 12 hours, so basically fast for a minimum 14 hours if you want any effect at all, and everything after that is bonus. no…

Where is the evidence that a 15 day fast is dangerous?

i think it would be premature to assume that it had universality in the same way as something like intermittent fasting.

the possibly dangerous part is recommending that particular part of the book in response to a query asking for how long one needs to fast to feel the effects.

Re: Fasting improves chemotherapy results and protects from side effects: study

#196

Post by SeanLuke »

feralimal wrote: post #137
SeanLuke wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Please provide your extraordinary evidence. Ideally in the form of multiple strong, well-vetted and well respected studies in peer-reviewed journals. Otherwise I'll presume you're full of it.

Absolutely. Let's look at the claims. What is the first claim though? Is it that extraordinary evidence needs to be provided for the claim that a poison (chemotherapy) is a cure for cancer? You will likely say that there is evidence in "multiple strong, well-vetted and well respected studies in peer-reviewed journals". But then I would question the authority of peer-reviewed journals. Do know about replication crisis…

So... you have nothing? That is what I figured.

Re: Fasting improves chemotherapy results and protects from side effects: study

#197

Post by late_groomer »

blithedale wrote: post #180
markus92 wrote: post #27

Interesting study with, as always, a lot of caveats. The most we can take from this is that it's worth to study more, the effect is existing but not extreme. I don't get the submitted title here claiming that it protects from side effects. The study does not mention this at all, just that the side effects are similar despite omission of dexamethason in the fasting arm of the trial - it increases appetite, so makes se…

I'm not convinced the 2/3 dropout rate of the FMD didn't simply select for people with less aggressive tumors, given that the Intention-To-Treat analysis found no difference in response rate, and that this paper is telling a nice story that actually happens to reverse cause and effect. Basically, this? HAS AGGRESSIVE TUMOR ---> CANNOT DO THE FMD HAS SLOW-GROWING TUMOR ---> ABLE TO MAINTAIN FMD Since you're researcher…

"The main reason for non-adherence to the FMD was dislike of distinct components of the diet, perhaps induced by chemotherapy [...] The FMD is a 4-day plant-based low amino-acid substitution diet, consisting of soups, broths, liquids and tea"

Occam's razor, patients couldn't stick with the diet.

Re: Fasting improves chemotherapy results and protects from side effects: study

#198

Post by feralimal »

SeanLuke wrote: post #196
feralimal wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely. Let's look at the claims. What is the first claim though? Is it that extraordinary evidence needs to be provided for the claim that a poison (chemotherapy) is a cure for cancer? You will likely say that there is evidence in "multiple strong, well-vetted and well respected studies in peer-reviewed journals". But then I would question the authority of peer-reviewed journals. Do know about replication crisis…

So... you have nothing? That is what I figured.

I'm saying neither of us has anything.

But that you are making a mistake in thinking you do have something.

Re: Fasting improves chemotherapy results and protects from side effects: study

#199

Post by SeanLuke »

feralimal wrote: post #198
SeanLuke wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So... you have nothing? That is what I figured.

I'm saying neither of us has anything. But that you are making a mistake in thinking you do have something.

I asked for evidence. Rather than providing any you went on a diatribe about science. Until you can provide any reasonable evidence of your claim, you are nothing but a crank.

Re: Fasting improves chemotherapy results and protects from side effects: study

#200

Post by mrfusion »

me_me_me wrote: post #79
hourislate wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have fasted 100 lbs away over the last 2 years. I adhere to an 18/6 time delay eating schedule but have done 2-3 day fasts with 1 refeed meal for a month at a time. I've also done countless 5-7 day fasts. I've gone as long as 12 days with nothing but water. There were many months where I could count the number of times I ate on one hand. My last go was every other day with just one meal on my eating days. I did tha…

> I've gone as long as 12 days with nothing but water. This is dangerous and please don't encourage others to do only water fast. Pure water fast is dangerous beyond 4 days or so. You need to supplement minerals while on per-longed fast. Salt, magnesium and potassium are vital to regulatory processes in your body. When your body uses up all reserves it will not be able to sustain those processes. It is serious busine…

I’ve yet to find a form of potassium that doesn’t upset my stomach when fasting. I’ve tried nu-salt, potassium citrate, and cream of tarter so far.

I’m about to give up on total fasts and have bone broth a few times a day for the minerals.

Post reply on HN