Cancer Is A State Of Chronic Stress With Elevated Lipolysis And Ketogenesis

OP
haidut

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe
Well, if I had cancer, I would avoid any growth factors (insulin, sugar, protein) like the plague, probably fast/do gerson diet and allow my immune system to get rid of those junk cells. Yeah my ketones would be high, good, they aren't growth substrates for cancer. Activating PDH is not a cancer cure, its an anabolic pathway for normal healthy cells, irrelevant in the whole body context of cancer.

ALL cancer cells have downregulated PDH and upregulated PDK. That is why they cannot metabolize glucose and are stuck in glycolysis. The drug DCA is a PDK inhibitor and restores proper PDH activity. Cancer cells also prefer to metabolize fat, and inhibiting this supply of fat to cancer cells is therapeutic.
Inhibiting Lipolysis May Treat / Cure Cancer

Insulin is one if one of the endogenous inhibitors of lipolysis and also of fatty acid oxidation. In a healthy person it is probably not good to inject extra insulin but in a person with cancer who is stuck in ketosis insulin can be a very valuable tool. The idea should not be to kill cancer cells but restore them back to normal activity. So, (proper) anabolic agents are actually quite helpful despite the mainstream view on restricting. Estrogen is anabolic in a BAD way and it is also a de-differentiating hormone. Progesterone, DHEA, T, DHT, etc are beneficial precisely because they are anabolic. Do you know synthetic DHT versions like Drostanolone have been approved by FDA since 1950s for treating (breast) cancer?
 

rei

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2017
Messages
1,607
This is in line with my understanding, but goes against the peat diet. The study you cite is very recent, so perhaps a shift is imminent?
 
OP
haidut

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe
This is in line with my understanding, but goes against the peat diet. The study you cite is very recent, so perhaps a shift is imminent?

Which study? Also there is a difference in what would be good for a healthy person and a cancer patient. Like I said above, I don't think healthy people should aim to jack up insulin. But in a person with cancer it could be therapeutic.
 

rei

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2017
Messages
1,607
Yeah you managed to post while i was writing my answer to koveras. I have serious doubt about insulin being beneficial to cancer patients. The prog/preg/dhea, T/DHT etc. route sounds very much more sound. But even there, the T to me is suspicious since it is associated with at least prostate cancer (perhaps actually only overgrowth?).
 
Joined
Feb 1, 2016
Messages
384
Location
NY
ALL cancer cells have downregulated PDH and upregulated PDK. That is why they cannot metabolize glucose and are stuck in glycolysis. The drug DCA is a PDK inhibitor and restores proper PDH activity. Cancer cells also prefer to metabolize fat, and inhibiting this supply of fat to cancer cells is therapeutic.
Inhibiting Lipolysis May Treat / Cure Cancer

Insulin is one if one of the endogenous inhibitors of lipolysis and also of fatty acid oxidation. In a healthy person it is probably not good to inject extra insulin but in a person with cancer who is stuck in ketosis insulin can be a very valuable tool. The idea should not be to kill cancer cells but restore them back to normal activity. So, (proper) anabolic agents are actually quite helpful despite the mainstream view on restricting. Estrogen is anabolic in a BAD way and it is also a de-differentiating hormone. Progesterone, DHEA, T, DHT, etc are beneficial precisely because they are anabolic. Do you know synthetic DHT versions like Drostanolone have been approved by FDA since 1950s for treating (breast) cancer?

LOL so you mention Warburg and then say cancer eats fat? WTF Warburg couldn't have been more clear, cancer thrives on glucose. These BS studies with genetically engineered cells pale in comparison to Warburg's extremely thorough and detailed work. He would scoff at those ridiculous studies. DCA works by KILLING the cell with ROS from glucose going through the disfuctional mitochondria.
 
Joined
Feb 1, 2016
Messages
384
Location
NY
And actually estrogen is anabolic, and not in a bad way. It is needed to maintain broad homeostasis. Try taking estrogen inhibitors and see what happens to your health LOL. Estrogen will de-differentiate your cells into yeast like beings that thrive on sugar(cancer). A bunch of glucose and insulin will do just that. Some of those cells will split and grow normally, some will die and be handled by immune cells, and one in a trillion will stay in that state for some mysterious reason and grow and multiply(tumor).

What Im saying is definitely not mainstream as you say. You will not hear anything about fasting and cancer from the establishment.
 
J

jb116

Guest
How about this mechanism?

@haidut has talked about alternative methods to raise NAD+

Front Mol Neurosci. 2017 Nov 14;10:377. doi: 10.3389/fnmol.2017.00377. eCollection 2017.
Ketone-Based Metabolic Therapy: Is Increased NAD+ a Primary Mechanism?
Elamin M1, Ruskin DN2, Masino SA2, Sacchetti P1.

The ketogenic diet's (KD) anticonvulsant effects have been well-documented for nearly a century, including in randomized controlled trials. Some patients become seizure-free and some remain so after diet cessation. Many recent studies have explored its expanded therapeutic potential in diverse neurological disorders, yet no mechanism(s) of action have been established. The diet's high fat, low carbohydrate composition reduces glucose utilization and promotes the production of ketone bodies. Ketone bodies are a more efficient energy source than glucose and improve mitochondrial function and biogenesis. Cellular energy production depends on the metabolic coenzyme nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD), a marker for mitochondrial and cellular health. Furthermore, NAD activates downstream signaling pathways (such as the sirtuin enzymes) associated with major benefits such as longevity and reduced inflammation; thus, increasing NAD is a coveted therapeutic endpoint. Based on differential NAD+ utilization during glucose- vs. ketone body-based acetyl-CoA generation for entry into the tricarboxylic cycle, we propose that a KD will increase the NAD+/NADH ratio. When rats were fed ad libitum KD, significant increases in hippocampal NAD+/NADH ratio and blood ketone bodies were detected already at 2 days and remained elevated at 3 weeks, indicating an early and persistent metabolic shift. Based on diverse published literature and these initial data we suggest that increased NAD during ketolytic metabolism may be a primary mechanism behind the beneficial effects of this metabolic therapy in a variety of brain disorders and in promoting health and longevity.
Definitely food for thought and interesting. My issue with it is perhaps not preserving one of the main ratios/redox ratios. Specifically oxaloacetate to acetoacetate. Anaplerosis is then affected in the long term, effectively reducing metabolic rate to maintain homeostasis. Ketosis was historically for such conditions: to maintain life at bare minimum. Everything that's good, maintains the proper levels of all ratios, not just NAD+/NADH. I'm starting to see that now, whereby there are means of attaining a goal but not benefiting the system as a whole energy system - you know, the way I think Peat would approach it as well.

Well, if I had cancer, I would avoid any growth factors (insulin, sugar, protein) like the plague, probably fast/do gerson diet and allow my immune system to get rid of those junk cells. Yeah my ketones would be high, good, they aren't growth substrates for cancer. Activating PDH is not a cancer cure, its an anabolic pathway for normal healthy cells, irrelevant in the whole body context of cancer.
Those factors however are not just about growth. They are also about maintenance. Actually, lacking carb/sugar triggers stress responses, past that without accommodating for this stress, you actually increase levels of actual HGH. To me, this is worse than anything else. Without carbs, therefore without insulin you tend to create less glutathione which is a powerful, self-regulating antioxidant against oxidative stress, much of one would experience in a cancer state. And the protective hormones mentioned, those rely on insulin! Testosterone, which by the way will sensitize cells to take up glucose, relies on insulin. DHT relies on insulin! Insulin efficiently increases 5-AR. That increase also protects the available testosterone. Ketones although temporarily provide relief, they are still created by stress nevertheless. Gluconeogenesis must occur to keep pyruvate dehydrogensae levels in check. Acetyl groups that trigger and maintain ketosis inhibit PDH. PDK is already dominant in cancer states. I don't see that as beneficial for the long run.
 
J

jb116

Guest
LOL so you mention Warburg and then say cancer eats fat? WTF Warburg couldn't have been more clear, cancer thrives on glucose. These BS studies with genetically engineered cells pale in comparison to Warburg's extremely thorough and detailed work. He would scoff at those ridiculous studies. DCA works by KILLING the cell with ROS from glucose going through the disfuctional mitochondria.
To be more accurate, cancer thrives on lactic acid which is what Warburg based his insights on. It's not the sugar! It's the malfunction of handling the sugar. And that's what cancer loves to feast on. If you think about it, it's a break down of systems; of forces in a sense versus other forces. Once a system of health and metabolism breaks down, there ensues an anarchy state in a sense. One thing that is resisted and kept in check normally, suddenly overcomes that restraint.
 
Joined
Feb 1, 2016
Messages
384
Location
NY
Yeah you managed to post while i was writing my answer to koveras. I have serious doubt about insulin being beneficial to cancer patients. The prog/preg/dhea, T/DHT etc. route sounds very much more sound. But even there, the T to me is suspicious since it is associated with at least prostate cancer (perhaps actually only overgrowth?).
LOL so going from one exogenous hormone to five is somehow going to create a favorable immune response? LOLS
 
OP
haidut

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe
LOL so you mention Warburg and then say cancer eats fat? WTF Warburg couldn't have been more clear, cancer thrives on glucose. These BS studies with genetically engineered cells pale in comparison to Warburg's extremely thorough and detailed work. He would scoff at those ridiculous studies. DCA works by KILLING the cell with ROS from glucose going through the disfuctional mitochondria.

Did you look at the studies posted in that thread on inhibiting lipolysis? Which studies are BS? DCA is a PDK inhibitor, which restores PDH activity and when Krebs cycle + ETC activity picks up as a result of course you are going to have ROS. What other mechanism for DCA raising ROS do you know of? By that token, do you think thiamine also raises ROS (see below)?
Thiamine Acts Similarly To DCA And May Be Helpful In Cancer

And since you mentioned Warburg, he himself said that thiamine deficiency activates the cancer metabolism. Thiamine is a cofactor for PDH and as per the study above it also inhibits PDK, just like DCA.
Deficiency Of Vitamin B1 (thiamine) Can Cause The Cancer Metabolism

So...maybe giving extra thiamine could treat cancer?? It certainly seems so, and not in yeast but in humans.
Thiamine Treats Cancer In Humans, Its Deficiency May Cause Cancer

The goal is not to kill cancer cells but to help them move beyond glycolysis. There is no difference between a "cancer" cell and "diabetic" cell - i.e. they both waste glucose into lactate and fat and then oxidize the fat. The reason I put the quotes around the types of cells is that there is no such thing, there are only normal cells with abnormal metabolism. This idea of evil, deranged cells that have to be killed (i.e. "heroic medicine" Peat talked about) as the only way to restore health has been the bane of medicine for the last 100+ years and has produced no cures so far. The sooner it goes, the better.

Starving the cancer of sugar has been tried so many times and it backfires horribly. They even invented a special molecule to do that - 2-deoxyglucose (2-Deoxy-D-glucose - Wikipedia) and it failed. Cancer cells waste glucose into lactic acid because of downregulated PDH, and whatever little glucose makes it into the Krebs cycle (as Acetyl-CoA) is converted to fat due to upregulated Fatty Acid Synthase (FAS). Look up "fatty acid synthase cancer" or "fatty acid oxidation cancer" and see how many drugs are being developed as we speak to target those pathways. Two of aspirin's main anti-cancer mechanisms are inhibition of FAS and fatty acid oxidation (FAO), yet it also improves sugar oxidation.
If estrogen is so good then why are women with breast cancer given drugs to run it into the ground? Why does it cause prostate cancer and heart failure in men? Estrogen upregulates both FAS and FAO, while at the same time inhibiting sugar oxidation. It also increases GSH synthesis and raises the GSH/GSSG ratio. GSH is the main defense mechanism of "cancer" cells against ROS. Look up "GSH depletion cancer". Does that sound like a good steroid to have elevated chronically?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 1, 2016
Messages
384
Location
NY
Did you look at the studies posted in that thread on inhibiting lipolysis? Which studies are BS? DCA is a PDK inhibitor, which restores PDH activity and when Krebs cycle + ETC activity picks up as a result of course you are going to have ROS. What other mechanism for DCA raising ROS do you know of? By that token, do you think thiamine also raises ROS (see below)?
Thiamine Acts Similarly To DCA And May Be Helpful In Cancer

And since you mentioned Warburg, he himself said that thiamine deficiency activates the cancer metabolism. Thiamine is a cofactor for PDH and as per the study above it also inhibits PDK, just like DCA.
Deficiency Of Vitamin B1 (thiamine) Can Cause The Cancer Metabolism

So...maybe giving extra thiamine could treat cancer?? It certainly seems so, and not in yeast but in humans.
Thiamine Treats Cancer In Humans, Its Deficiency May Cause Cancer

The goal is not to kill cancer cells but to help them move beyond glycolysis. There is no difference between a "cancer" cell and "diabetic" cell - i.e. they both waste glucose into lactate and fat and then oxidize the fat. The reason I put the quotes around the types of cells is that there is no such thing, there are only normal cells with abnormal metabolism. This idea of evil, deranged cells that have to be killed (i.e. "heroic medicine" Peat talked about) as the only way to restore health has been the bane of medicine for the last 100+ years and has produced no cures so far. The sooner it goes, the better.

Starving the cancer of sugar has been tried so many times and it backfires horribly. They even invented a special molecule to do that - 2-deoxyglucose (2-Deoxy-D-glucose - Wikipedia) and it failed. Cancer cells waste glucose into lactic acid because of downregulated PDH, and whatever little glucose makes it into the Krebs cycle (as Acetyl-CoA) is converted to fat due to upregulated Fatty Acid Synthase (FAS). Look up "fatty acid synthase cancer" or "fatty acid oxidation cancer" and see how many drugs are being developed as we speak to target those pathways. Two of aspirin's main anti-cancer mechanisms are inhibition of FAS and fatty acid oxidation (FAO), yet it also improves sugar oxidation.
If estrogen is so good then why are women with breast cancer given drugs to run it into the ground? Why does it cause prostate cancer and heart failure in men? Estrogen upregulates both FAS and FAO, while at the same time inhibiting sugar oxidation. Does that sound like a good steroid to have elevated chronically?


There's actually a difference between so called "cancer cells" that exist in a petri dish and actual tumors in the body. If you choose to take that stuff seriously, fine. I'm sure there's a lot of fascinating science there, but I don't take to those kind of studies being meaningful in the context of cancer in an actual animal, with blood and hormones and circadian rhythm etc. Warburg is a rare scientist in that he wasn't lazy and actually went to great lengths in his experimentation to conduct thorough science. Once again, his findings were clear about cancer and glucose. The NIH tried to prove for decades that too much fat causes cancer, they fell flat on their face. LOL What I said about DCA is not refuted,LOL it works through ROS, just like radiation and chemo.
The goal is not to kill cancer cells but to help them move beyond glycolysis.

Warburg found that cancers have a point of no return where they cannot revert back to normal metabolism and must be killed. This is the truth in real tumors, they must be destroyed. That always involves the immune system whether w/ or w/out radiation/chemo etc.

Glycolysis; Regualtion, Processes and Disease
http://brianpeskin.com/pdf/publications/Glycolysis-chap.pdf
"Significantly, Goldblatt and Cameron also verified Dr. Warburg’s finding (published in 1925)[5] that a “respiration-impacted,” destined-to-become cancerous cell could be stopped if it was oxygenated early enough. In Goldblatt and Cameron’s paper (p.527), it was reported: …The length and frequency of exposure of the different [normal] cultures to nitrogen [cutting off oxygen] were varied greatly at first, in order to determine the periods that would prove definitely injurious in greater or less degree, but from which most of the cultures recovered readily after the return to aerobic [oxygenated] conditions were 15 minutes of nitrogen twice in 24 hours, for 3 successive days with an interval of 11¾ hours between successive exposures. It was found that even after exposure to nitrogen for ½ hour, 3 times in every 24 hours, for 7 consecutive days, with an interval of 7½ hours between successive exposures, recovery could still occur, although the injury was great; but recovery was slower and less certain after such long periods of anaerobiosis [oxygen deprivation]; and some of the cultures did not recover. (Emphasis added.) The authors also noted that once damage was too great to the cell, then no amount of oxygen would return the cell’s respiration back to normal—it was forever doomed to a cancerous life."

LOL nothing you say about estrogen reflects or refutes what I said about it above LOLZ. Let's ask DaveFoster what he thinks of taking estrogen inhibitors.
 
Joined
Feb 1, 2016
Messages
384
Location
NY
and why are you recommending insulin if you are saying FAS is the devil? Glucose, protein, insulin and estrogen work together in potentiating the anabolic, cancerous phenotype, they also inhibit proper catabolic immune response. Fasting is the way to go Peatple.(Amazoniac, is that quip better??) ;)
 
OP
haidut

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe
There's actually a difference between so called "cancer cells" that exist in a petri dish and actual tumors in the body. If you choose to take that stuff seriously, fine. I'm sure there's a lot of fascinating science there, but I don't take to those kind of studies being meaningful in the context of cancer in an actual animal, with blood and hormones and circadian rhythm etc. Warburg is a rare scientist in that he wasn't lazy and actually went to great lengths in his experimentation to conduct thorough science. Once again, his findings were clear about cancer and glucose. The NIH tried to prove for decades that too much fat causes cancer, they fell flat on their face. LOL What I said about DCA is not refuted,LOL it works through ROS, just like radiation and chemo.


Warburg found that cancers have a point of no return where they cannot revert back to normal metabolism and must be killed. This is the truth in real tumors, they must be destroyed. That always involves the immune system whether w/ or w/out radiation/chemo etc.

Glycolysis; Regualtion, Processes and Disease
http://brianpeskin.com/pdf/publications/Glycolysis-chap.pdf
"Significantly, Goldblatt and Cameron also verified Dr. Warburg’s finding (published in 1925)[5] that a “respiration-impacted,” destined-to-become cancerous cell could be stopped if it was oxygenated early enough. In Goldblatt and Cameron’s paper (p.527), it was reported: …The length and frequency of exposure of the different [normal] cultures to nitrogen [cutting off oxygen] were varied greatly at first, in order to determine the periods that would prove definitely injurious in greater or less degree, but from which most of the cultures recovered readily after the return to aerobic [oxygenated] conditions were 15 minutes of nitrogen twice in 24 hours, for 3 successive days with an interval of 11¾ hours between successive exposures. It was found that even after exposure to nitrogen for ½ hour, 3 times in every 24 hours, for 7 consecutive days, with an interval of 7½ hours between successive exposures, recovery could still occur, although the injury was great; but recovery was slower and less certain after such long periods of anaerobiosis [oxygen deprivation]; and some of the cultures did not recover. (Emphasis added.) The authors also noted that once damage was too great to the cell, then no amount of oxygen would return the cell’s respiration back to normal—it was forever doomed to a cancerous life."

LOL nothing you say about estrogen reflects or refutes what I said about it above LOLZ. Let's ask DaveFoster what he thinks of taking estrogen inhibitors.

The very idea of metabolic therapy is that nothing is irreversible. And no, cancer cells are NOT irreversible. Even mainstream medicine has caught up with that fact.
Scientists Revert Pancreatic Cancer Cells in Mice Back to Normal, Healthy Cells
"...Researchers in the US have figured out a way to turn pancreatic cancer cells back into normal healthy cells in mice by introducing a protein that’s responsible for the regulation of proper cell growth and differentiation....“The finding that we can differentiate these cancer cells back to a non-threatening phenotype is encouraging," said one of the team, Andrew M. Lowy, from the US National Cancer Institute’s Pancreatic Cancer Task Force. "Indeed, there is a precedent for cell differentiation therapy in that the approach has been used to treat acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) and some neuroblastomas successfully."

The study above was not in a petry dish and the very fact that it is possible to differentiate cancer back to normal WITHOUT the need for mutations (which supposedly started the cancer) speaks volumes. And the the studies posted in my threads are not all in vitro. One of them used niacinamide (a known lipolysis inhibitor) to make liver (and possibly pancreatic) cancer disappear completely.
Niacinamide Can Cure Liver (and Maybe Pancreatic) Cancer

Yet another study on reverting "cancer" cells back to normal really hits the nail on the gist of cancer. Cancer is a signalling problem, and has nothing to do with mutations.
https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-n...-signal-goes-below-threshold-study-finds.html
"...Cancer starts when key cellular signals run amok, driving uncontrolled cell growth. But scientists at the School of Medicine report that lowering levels of one cancer signal under a specific threshold reverses this process in mice, returning tumor cells to their normal, healthy state. The finding could help target cancer chemotherapy to tumors while minimizing side effects on the body's healthy cells. The researchers identified a precise threshold level of the signaling molecule Myc that determined the fate of tumor cells in a cancer of the immune system in mice. Above the threshold, high levels of Myc drove immune cells to grow too large and multiply uncontrollably. When the researchers lowered Myc levels below the threshold, the same cells shrank to normal size, stopped multiplying and began dying normally."

Btw, you know what else reverts cancer cells back to normal? Aspirin. And again, no mutations needed.
Aspirin Stops Breast Cancer; Reprograms Cancer Cells Into Normal

We have posted about that mis-communication (quorum) problem here before. It is the driving factor of every chronic disease and not just cancer.
Collective Cellular Communication Key For Health And Disease (cancer)

You can't kill the "cancer" cells, neither remove them completely. You know why? Because cancer is a systemic, signalling disease. Once it forms, the entire organism has been informed that it is in a stressed/emergency state. That signal is now part of every cell, not just the ones dividing rapidly. The moment you cut out the localized tumor or try to kill it with chemotherapy/radiation, metastases kick in and the situation becomes dramatically worse.
Chemotherapy Causes Cancer Metastases, Tumor Evolution
Chemotherapy Causes Cancer To Spread And Makes It Lethal

It is akin to treating smallpox by cutting out the pimples and hoping for a cure. The "cut, poison, burn" approach to cancer has been mainstream therapy for more than a century and look where we are - zero true cures so far. Cancer is a desperate attempt at developing an ad-hoc organ to replace the one that has been damaged or is severely malfunctioning. It is not an attempt to kill the host, and the more you try to kill the cancer the quicker you are actually killing the host. It is not a coincidence that ALL solid tumors start as a result of injury. If repeated attempts to heal it fail, eventually fibrosis starts and the next stage is cancer - i.e. the desperate attempt to grown a "new" organ. Fibrosis is driven by serotonin (through the 5-HT2B receptor to be precise), and it is not a coincidence because serotonin is the main signal informing the entire organism of said stress/injury. Serotonin is thus required for cancer development and blocking 5-HT2B can prevent and probably treat cancer.
The Serotonin Receptor 5-HT2B Is Required For Cancer; Can Be Blocked

Cancer makes no evolutionary sense UNLESS it is viewed as a repair mechanism that went out of control due to systemic cellular quorum being silenced (usually due to stress/injury/poison).
And finally on estrogen - it is the main signal that triggers that repair mechanism, and if it stays on for long enough it creates the cancer phenotype. It goes hand in hand with serotonin, prolactin, and cortisol, which are all powerful tumor promoters (and initiators). They also all promotes each others' synthesis and are part of the systemic stress signal/field.
Prolactin Is A Good Metric For Serotonin And Estrogen Levels

Again, in light of this do you still think estrogen is something worth elevating chronically?
Finally, any potential benefits of fasting can be replicated by simply restricting intake of inflammatory amino acids (typtophan, cysteine, methionine) and PUFA, and/or by lowering endotoxin release or blocking its effects through TLR4 antagonism. And this avoids the wasting (from fasting), which is so dangerous for a person with cancer.
 
Last edited:
OP
haidut

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe
and why are you recommending insulin if you are saying FAS is the devil? Glucose, protein, insulin and estrogen work together in potentiating the anabolic, cancerous phenotype, they also inhibit proper catabolic immune response. Fasting is the way to go Peatple.(Amazoniac, is that quip better??) ;)

Yes, insulin activates FAS. I said for healthy people it is not wise to raise too high for too long or to inject. But for cancer patient it could be life-saving. It lowers FFA and activates PDH, allowing glucose metabolism to resume and that part is highly beneficial for people with cancer. When you fast, you flood the tumor with FFA and help it grow. If people with cancer have cells addicted to sugar (as you said) and you deprive them of the sugar through fasting, what do you think happens in response? Cortisol rises (even in healthy fasting people) and it sheds their muscles to provide tumor with glucose. That loss of muscle mass can kill a cancer patient rather quickly, and in fact cachexia kills 4 out of 5 cancer patients.
You should talk to forum members Gbol or TubZy, they may agree with you.
 
Joined
Feb 1, 2016
Messages
384
Location
NY
Scientists Revert Pancreatic Cancer Cells in Mice Back to Normal, Healthy Cells
"Publishing in the journal Pancreas, the team describes how they extracted some pancreatic cells from lab mice, engineered them to produce more E47, and reinstalled them back into the mice to see what would happen. They found that the these cells were able to halt the progression of early pancreatic cancer growth stages, and the likelihood of them forming tumours was greatly diminished, particularly when compared to regular pancreatic cells."

It's funny, reading the title, you get to thinking that a brilliant group of scientists succeeded in reverting pancreatic cancer cells in mice back to normal, healthy cells... ie re-differentiating actual metastisizing tumors, not halting progression of "early" cancer cells, clickbait is a b****
 
OP
haidut

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe
Scientists Revert Pancreatic Cancer Cells in Mice Back to Normal, Healthy Cells
"Publishing in the journal Pancreas, the team describes how they extracted some pancreatic cells from lab mice, engineered them to produce more E47, and reinstalled them back into the mice to see what would happen. They found that the these cells were able to halt the progression of early pancreatic cancer growth stages, and the likelihood of them forming tumours was greatly diminished, particularly when compared to regular pancreatic cells."

It's funny, reading the title, you get to thinking that a brilliant group of scientists succeeded in reverting pancreatic cancer cells in mice back to normal, healthy cells... ie re-differentiating actual metastisizing tumors, not halting progression of "early" cancer cells, clickbait is a b****

Did you look at the Stanford study? Is that also a clickbait and puny attempt in early state tumors?
 
Joined
Feb 1, 2016
Messages
384
Location
NY
I agree about the signaling being a central issue, that's why I mention fasting, it causes a unified whole body shift towards catabolism, not a good environment for cancer.
LOL still with the estrogen, still haven't reflected or refuted LOL
 
Joined
Feb 1, 2016
Messages
384
Location
NY
Yes, insulin activates FAS. I said for healthy people it is not wise to raise too high for too long or to inject. But for cancer patient it could be life-saving. It lowers FFA and activates PDH, allowing glucose metabolism to resume and that part is highly beneficial for people with cancer. When you fast, you flood the tumor with FFA and help it grow. If people with cancer have cells addicted to sugar (as you said) and you deprive them of the sugar through fasting, what do you think happens in response? Cortisol rises (even in healthy fasting people) and it sheds their muscles to provide tumor with glucose. That loss of muscle mass can kill a cancer patient rather quickly, and in fact cachexia kills 4 out of 5 cancer patients.
You should talk to forum members Gbol or TubZy, they may agree with you.
Cancer cells dont burn fat, sorry but they don't. The muscle mass lost in cachexia isn't being converted to fat LOL its turning into glucose and glutamine to fuel the cancer.
 
Joined
Feb 1, 2016
Messages
384
Location
NY
Did you look at the Stanford study? Is that also a clickbait and puny attempt in early state tumors?
I had a look, after a few yawns I figured, yep this is the same empty meaninglessness that the cancer industry feeds the public.
 

d1d2

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
56
“Cancer cells use glucose and the amino acid glutamine primarily for synthetic purposes, and use fats as their energy source;the growth stimulating effect of the "essential fatty acids" (Sueyoshi and Nagao, 1962a; Holley, et al., 1974) shows that depriving a tumor of those fats retards its growth. The great energetic inefficiency of the cancer metabolism, which causes it to produce a large amount of heat and to cause systemic stress, failure of immunity, and weight loss, is because it synthesizes fat from glucose and amino acids, and then oxidizes the fat as if it were diabetic.

Estrogen, which is responsible for the fact that women burn fatty acids more easily than men, is centrally involved in this metabolic inefficiency.” — Ray Peat
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom