stoicy

Should I get cancer I would instantly take today's cancer treatments and not rely on diet. After all, if I do get cancer and it is a metabolic disease affected by diet, then my idea of the correct diet is wrong by definition. I wouldn't expect it to cure the disease it just caused.

"Exclusively" is a tad too strong, but other than that what you said is exactly what I believe. And it's not only a belief, it's based on research and evidence that's publicly available.

To my best knowledge cancer reasearch by and large is off tracks, and it's the aberrant metabolism of cancer cells (which has been known for decades and is not controversial, even PET scanners operate on that principle) that should be studied more. And that's highly linked to diet as well.

I'm more interested in not getting cancer in the first place, and here I believe diet is the key. I know there are many people who died of cancer and thought the same way, but then again, I operate on the logic I stated in the first paragraph. I expect more evidence starts popping up during the years and decades ahead. The results of mainstream ideology are not at all convincing, and to me it seems hard evidence supports the metabolic theory.

You and I probably disagree on what is a "perfectly healthy diet". But I fully agree with you that whatever the diet, it does not give exactly 100 % immunity for cancer. There are a minority of cancer types that seem to have quite normal cellular metabolism. It's unclear whether diet affects them as much as it affects most cancers such as breast cancer.

I also disagree with you that cancer is primarily a disease of age (or ageing). Age is a contributing factor because the longer one lives, the larger the integral of the contributing effects are. Cancer usually takes quite a long time to form and develop so bad that it starts to cause symptoms.

I agree with you that my tone was too harsh. This is a dear subject for me, and I seldom argue about it, because it's so frustrating. I really have no clue why so much hostility arises around this and dieting in general. Maybe because it's so personal and important for all of us. And so, so hard to study by changing only one variable at a time.

So sorry about my harsh tone. Didn't mean to guilt any cancer patients.

Yes I know it sounds absurd.

That just happens to be the topic of the article we're commenting on here. It's also the topic of the book Tripping Over the Truth: The Metabolic Theory of Cancer by Travis Christofferson.

I'm not going to argue about the issue here, but I recommend that book for everyone. If nothing else, it's an interesting read for the history of cancer research and the development of chemotherapeutic drugs.

I don't think so and I didn't say so above. I hope you read my text, not only the first sentence of it.

I don't have any authority to comment what they mean in this particular article, but I have studied the issue quite a bit. So I give you my own world view, whatever it's worth.

To get a quick therapeutic effect of starvation, the starvation has to endure several days. During that time the patient drinks water and doesn't ingest any calories at all. There are no exact rules, but after about 4 days the therapeutic effects kick into action, and about 7 days is the maximum. After that the starvation starts to make more harm than good.

This is not easy for a normal person accustomed to a western diet, let alone for someone going through chemotherapy. For someone who already eats correctly (see my other comment in this thread) it's not such a big deal. But then again, you don't see those people on cancer wards as patients too often.

As the saying goes, the best way to beat cancer is not to get one. And for that intermittent fasting is outstanding. In practice it means you eat one or two large portions of food a day. Between the last one of today and the first one of tomorrow should be about 16 hours, give or take. This gives you constant daily beneficial effects of fasting, and once you get accustomed to it and eat the right food, it feels great.

Some recommend a couple of 4-6 days fastings a year on top of this. It's a piece of cake for someone who has practiced such eating habits for some time.

The "in < out" is as silly as saying that Bill Gates is rich because more money enters into his bank account than leaves from it. Both are tautologies and don't explain anything, and are not the root cause. It's always the root cause that really matters, not the side effects.

People get fat because they eat the wrong food, of which the effect of making them hungry and eat even more is only one of the many detrimental effects of unsuitable food for us or other animals.

I don't write this to change your mind, but hope that if someone else reads this, at least this might give them some encouragement, so that they might persist through to read about the issue themselves. It really is not easy to swim against the current.

Our bodies are far more than a simple caloric furnace. But luckily fatness, cancer and a myriad of other metabolic diseases resolve themselves once and for all without calorie counting when one starts to eat correctly. That is, plenty of animal fats, meat, eggs and fish, and very little carbohydrates of any kind. Large portions and infrequently. This makes and keeps you healthy, and you cannot overeat even if you try. Simple and elegant, which is always a prerequisite for any correct theory about nature.

Aspirin indeed often has a blood-thinning effect. As such it may help reduce the risk of blood clots. That's the best case scenario, and even then it merely treats the symptoms, not the root cause of blood clots.

Blood clots and cerebral hemorrhage are the two sides of the coin. By popping an aspirin you shift the odds from blood clots to hemorrhage.

If I had to choose one of them, I'd take the blood clot.