Skeptics Guide to the Universe Forums

General Discussions => Health, Fitness, Nutrition, and Medicine => Topic started by: CarbShark on August 27, 2019, 11:11:40 PM

Title: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: CarbShark on August 27, 2019, 11:11:40 PM
This is a topic that's important enough to me that I think it merits its own thread.

Based on the idea that cancer cells rely primarily and in some cases exclusively on glucose for energy (the Warburg effect) the idea of using carbohydrate restriction to fight cancer along with traditional methods (chemo; radiation; surgery) has gotten a lot of traction lately and shown significant promise.

But, there have not been enough studies to clearly show its effectiveness (or lack thereof) but there is very little or no evidence that it causes harm.

I have two close friends who have cancer now, one of them has known me since before I was a LCHF dieter, back when I was obese.

So I'm going to share this with him. He's fairly skeptical, and may dismiss it out of hand, but I would feel terrible if I did nothing, and then better studies start showing a beneficial effect while his cancer progresses. (He's doing chemo and after some progress his tumors have started growing again).
 
So here's what I found in a couple hours on pub med. I've read all the abstracts and will read the full text of as many as I can in the days to come.



EDIT: No new links here, just a quotes from a few of the articles.



ketogenic diet and cancer - PubMed - NCBI (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed)

Front Cell Dev Biol. 2019; 7: 80.
Published online 2019 May 15. doi: 10.3389/fcell.2019.00080
PMCID: PMC6530249
PMID: 31157222
Editorial: The Warburg Effect Regulation Under Siege: the Intertwined Pathways in Health and Disease
Concetta Bubici1,* and Salvatore Papa2,*

Quote
As the implications of the Warburg effect in health and disease continue to emerge, we are entering into a renaissance period for metabolism research. Since the Warburg's original observation, we have learnt a lot about the effect of signal transduction on metabolic pathways and how cells rapidly reprogram their metabolism although much remains to be discovered.


Editorial: The Warburg Effect Regulation Under Siege: the Intertwined Pathways in Health and Disease (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6530249/)



Rationale, Feasibility and Acceptability of Ketogenic Diet for Cancer Treatment (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5624453/)


 J Cancer Prev. 2017 Sep; 22(3): 127–134.
Published online 2017 Sep 30. doi: 10.15430/JCP.2017.22.3.127
PMCID: PMC5624453
PMID: 29018777
Rationale, Feasibility and Acceptability of Ketogenic Diet for Cancer Treatment
Hae-Yun Chung1 and Yoo Kyoung Park2

Quote
From this review, we found further evidence that ketogenic diet in cancer patients is safe and feasible as an adjuvant therapy. As described above, we could conclude that in order to see any significant progression or improvement by ketogenic diet, at least 3 to 4 weeks of ketogenic diet is required. Additionally, we suggest that not only body composition but also biomarker or measures for tumor size or tumor metabolism assessment is essential. We also conclude that the acceptability for ketone diet may be better in some cancer type (better in glioblastoma than gastric cancer).



Ketogenic Diet and Other Dietary Intervention Strategies in the Treatment of Cancer. - PubMed - NCBI (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28093985)

Ketogenic Diet and Other Dietary Intervention Strategies in the Treatment of Cancer
Author(s): Matteo Vergati, Eriseld Krasniqi, Girolamo D. Monte, Silvia Riondino, Doriana Vallone, Fiorella Guadagni, Patrizia Ferroni*, Mario Roselli.
Journal Name: Current Medicinal Chemistry
Volume 24 , Issue 12 , 2017

DOI : 10.2174/0929867324666170116122915

Quote
The rationale of KD is valid both because it lowers carbohydrate uptake possibly leading to cancer cell starvation and apoptosis and, at the same time, increases the levels of ketone bodies available for energy production in normal cells but not in cancer cells which have an allegedly downregulated oxidative phosphorylation.


Ketogenic diet in the treatment of cancer – Where do we stand? - ScienceDirect (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212877819304272?via%3Dihub)
Molecular Metabolism
Review
Ketogenic diet in the treatment of cancer – Where do we stand?

Author links open overlay panelDaniela D.WeberSepidehAminzadeh-GohariJuliaTulipanLucaCatalanoRené G.FeichtingerBarbaraKofler

Quote
The ketogenic diet probably creates an unfavorable metabolic environment for cancer cells and thus can be regarded as a promising adjuvant as a patient-specific multifactorial therapy. The majority of preclinical and several clinical studies argue for the use of the ketogenic diet in combination with standard therapies based on its potential to enhance the antitumor effects of classic chemo- and radiotherapy, its overall good safety and tolerability and increase in quality of life. However, to further elucidate the mechanisms of the ketogenic diet as a therapy and evaluate its application in clinical practice, more molecular studies as well as uniformly controlled clinical trials are needed.


A Ketogenic Diet Is Acceptable in Women with Ovarian and Endometrial Cancer and Has No Adverse Effects on Blood Lipids: a Randomized, Controlled Tr... - PubMed - NCBI (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31352797)
A Ketogenic Diet Is Acceptable in Women with Ovarian and Endometrial Cancer and Has No Adverse Effects on Blood Lipids: a Randomized, Controlled Trial.

Cohen CW1, Fontaine KR2, Arend RC3,4, Gower BA1.

Quote
Abstract
Ketogenic diets (KDs) are emerging as effective therapies for several chronic diseases, including cancer. However, concerns regarding safety and adherence may prevent clinicians from prescribing KDs. We hypothesized that a KD does not negatively affect blood lipid profile compared to a lower-fat diet in ovarian and endometrial cancer patients, and that KD subjects would demonstrate acceptable adherence. Subjects were randomized to either a KD (70% fat, 25% protein, 5% carbohydrate), or the American Cancer Society diet (ACS; high-fiber and lower-fat). Blood lipids and ketones were measured at baseline and after 12 weeks of the assigned intervention. Adherence measures included urinary ketones in the KD and 4 days' diet records. Diet records were also examined to identify general patterns of consumption. Differences between the diets on blood lipids and dietary intake were assessed with Analysis of covariance and independent t-tests. Correlation analyses were used to estimate associations between dietary intake and serum analytes. At 12 weeks, there were no significant differences between diet groups in blood lipids, after adjusting for baseline values and weight loss. Adherence among KD subjects ranged from 57% to 80%. These findings suggest that KDs may be a safe and achievable component of treatment for some cancer patients.



Wilhelm Brünings' forgotten contribution to the metabolic treatment of cancer utilizing hypoglycemia and a very low carbohydrate (ketogenic) diet (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6544614/)

Quote
First clinical pilot studies on the KD and cancer have been conducted,7,10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and several others are planned or currently running.15, 16, 17 These studies are based on mainly three rationales.18 First, KDs have been shown to be capable of slowing down tumor growth in many, although not all, animal models.18,19 Second, the replacement of carbohydrates with fat that is characteristic for a KD is supposed to account for the increased fat oxidation rates in cancer patients that are due to tumor-induced insulin resistance, in this way possibly protecting against skeletal muscle loss.20, 21, 22 Third, KDs are expected to sensitize tumor cells to radio- and chemotherapy, principally opening up a very broad range of applications as complementary cancer treatments. This at least partly relates to their ability to impair tumor cell glycolysis, reducing ATP levels and the ability to utilize substrates of glycolytic metabolism for protection against reactive oxygen species.23, 24, 25


The emerging role of ketogenic diets in cancer treatment. - PubMed - NCBI (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30531479)

Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2019 Mar;22(2):129-134. doi: 10.1097/MCO.0000000000000540.
The emerging role of ketogenic diets in cancer treatment.
Klement RJ1.
Author information
Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Leopoldina Hospital Schweinfurt, Schweinfurt, Germany.
Quote
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW:
Altered glucose metabolism in cancer cells is an almost ubiquitous observation, yet hardly exploited therapeutically. However, ketogenic diets have gained growing attention in recent years as a nontoxic broad-spectrum approach to target this major metabolic difference between normal and cancer cells. Although much research still needs to be done, new knowledge has been gained about the optimal utilization of ketogenic diets for cancer treatment that this review aims to summarize.
RECENT FINDINGS:
Although most preclinical studies indicate a therapeutic potential for ketogenic diets in cancer treatment, it is now becoming clear that not all tumors might respond positively. Early clinical trials have investigated ketogenic diets as a monotherapy and - while showing the safety of the approach even in advanced cancer patients - largely failed to prove survival prolonging effects. However, it gradually became clear that the greatest potential for ketogenic diets is as adjuvant treatments combined with pro-oxidative or targeted therapies initiated in early stages of the disease. Beneficial effects on body composition and quality of life have also been found.
SUMMARY:
Ketogenic diets against cancer are worth further exploration, both in the laboratory and clinically. Patients wishing to undertake a ketogenic diet during therapy should receive dietary counselling to avoid common mistakes and optimize compliance. Future research should focus more on important clinical endpoints.


Pros and Cons of Dietary Strategies Popular Among Cancer Patients | Cancer Network (https://www.cancernetwork.com/dietary-strategies-cancer)
Quote
More recently, however, preclinical research suggests that the potential mechanism of ketosis on cancer cells does not rely solely on the Warburg effect. The spectrum of altered growth, metabolism, and signaling metabolites incurred by ketosis may result in a cancer cell–specific induction of oxidative stress, thereby potentiating the effect of chemotherapy and radiation.[34,35] Additionally, ketogenic diets may have a protein-sparing effect that preserves lean body mass in the setting of cancer cachexia.[36] In animal models, ketogenic diets decrease the initiation, progression, and metastasis of cancer.[37]

Evidence in human clinical trials is limited to cases and small open-label studies, typically as salvage therapies, which confirm the feasibility and safety of ketogenic diets. These studies suggest that ketogenic diets are safe, and do not negatively impact quality of life. They are, however, difficult to adhere to, and many patients do not reach desired levels of ketones in the urine.[35,38-41] The bottom line is that ketogenic diets may have utility in certain individuals, especially in combination with other conventional therapies, but there is currently no reliable way to predict which patients might respond. They are exceedingly difficult to implement without professional dietary counseling. Moreover, poorly implemented ketogenic diets incur risk for micronutrient deficiency; are very high in saturated fat; are typically low in fiber; may include processed foods; and may exclude entire food groups, such as fruits, legumes, and many vegetables, which have been shown to be beneficial for cancer prevention and mortality (See Figure).

Dietary fat: From foe to friend? | Science (https://science.sciencemag.org/content/362/6416/764.long)


Nutritional Targeting of Cancer Cell Metabolism in Obesity (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6075178/)


Investigating the Ketogenic Diet As Treatment for Primary Aggressive Brain Cancer: Challenges and Lessons Learned (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5834833/)
Quote
There are both in vitro and in vivo animal studies to suggest that KD has the potential to augment the treatments currently available for patients with aggressive gliomas. The value of KD to treat humans with these malignancies has yet to be proven in clinical trials. There is currently a lack of standard KD protocols so that comparison of different trials is difficult. Rigorous diet management and objective measures of ketosis are required to fairly evaluate the effectiveness of the KD as therapy for aggressive gliomas.

Ketogenic diet in cancer therapy (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5842847/)
Quote
In conclusion, clinical application of KDs as an adjuvant therapy for cancer patients first requires that the KD be evaluated for its anti-tumor effect for each single type/genetic subtype of cancer in a preclinical setting, as the safety and efficacy of the KD strongly depend on the tumor entity and its genotype. Based on the results of rigorous preclinical and clinical studies performed thus far, the KD would appear to be a promising and powerful option for adjuvant therapy for a range of cancers. Cancer-specific recommendations await the findings of randomized controlled clinical trials.


Efficacy of Metabolically Supported Chemotherapy Combined with Ketogenic Diet, Hyperthermia, and Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy for Stage IV Triple-Nega... - PubMed - NCBI (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28924531)


Efficacy of Metabolically Supported Chemotherapy Combined with Ketogenic Diet, Hyperthermia, and Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy for Stage IV Triple-Negative Breast Cancer (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5589510/)


Alternative Ketogenic Diet with Coconut Milk in a Case with Underlying Colorectal Cancer. - PubMed - NCBI (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28900345)


Article on ketogenic dietary regimes for cancer highly misleading. - PubMed - NCBI (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28455833)


Consuming a Ketogenic Diet while Receiving Radiation and Chemotherapy for Locally Advanced Lung and Pancreatic Cancer: The University of Iowa Experience of Two Phase I Clinical Trials (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5510645/)


A Nutritional Perspective of Ketogenic Diet in Cancer: A Narrative Review. - PubMed - NCBI (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28366810)


Ketogenic Diets and Cancer: Emerging Evidence (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6375425/)

Quote
Data from case reports and trials suggest KD use is safe and tolerable for patients with cancer. Although it would be ideal to conduct a larger trial using a randomized therapeutic approach, the current emphasis on drug-based trials is a formidable obstacle. Other major obstacles are patient initiative and adherence. For now, investigators must work with anecdotal data. Examination of gene expression patterns in mitochondria and mutations in ketolytic and glycolytic enzymes may prove useful in selecting potentially responsive patients. Combining this dietary approach with standard chemotherapeutic and radiotherapeutic options may help improve tumor response, and further research is desperately needed.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: wastrel on August 27, 2019, 11:35:24 PM
Fuck this.  You have now really, really crossed a line IMO.

Fuck this.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: bachfiend on August 27, 2019, 11:49:46 PM
I think your sceptical friend would have reason for being sceptical. 

By the time a cancer becomes apparent, it’s already around 75% along its course from initiation to death.  For breast cancer, for example, for a tumour 1 cm in diameter (about the smallest palpable tumour), it takes around 30 doublings from a single initial cancer cell.  And it takes around another 10 doublings to reach a volume equivalent to a tumour size of 10 cms, which is likely to be fatal.

In these 40 doublings, representing numerous cell divisions, multiple mutations will occur resulting in many metabolic defects, including a reliance on glucose for tumour metabolism.

But tumours when they’re apparent aren’t a single type of cell.  There will be many different clones of tumour cells, with differing patterns of mutations and different metabolic requirements.  All that a ketogenic diet might do is to select the tumour cells that are not as sensitive, which might be a minority of the tumour cells.  It might increase the length of survival without affecting the outcome.

It would certainly be more useful to prevent the cancer from developing.  There’s some suggestion that fasting might be of benefit.  It upregulates ubiquitin, a protein concerned with apoptosis (programmed cell death), which acts to remove damaged cells, possibly including pre-cancerous cells, maybe.

On reflection, a ketogenic diet might be worth trying, perhaps.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: bachfiend on August 27, 2019, 11:53:14 PM
Fuck this.  You have now really, really crossed a line IMO.

Fuck this.

Don’t be reticent about expressing your opinion.  How do you really feel?

Agreed.  CarbShark has crossed a line in recommending medical treatment, despite having no medical expertise (something he does regularly with his dietary proselytising).
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: CarbShark on August 27, 2019, 11:55:11 PM
Sharing information is not giving medical advice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: bachfiend on August 28, 2019, 12:16:19 AM
Sharing information is not giving medical advice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

‘Sharing information’ (particularly when it’s selected ones for your proselytised diet) is giving medical advice.

Also, the people writing articles dealing with ketogenic diets in cancer aren’t exactly disinterested.  They already have an interest in the efficacy of diet.

Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: CarbShark on August 28, 2019, 01:23:55 AM
Maybe you should read some of the articles before making judgements.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: bachfiend on August 28, 2019, 01:40:04 AM
Maybe you should read some of the articles before making judgements.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And maybe you ought to put on your sceptical hat before doing one of your infamous block dump of selected articles written by biased authors:

https://www.mdanderson.org/publications/cancerwise/the-keto-diet-and-cancer--what-patients-should-know.h00-159223356.html
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: Harry Black on August 28, 2019, 03:28:15 AM
'A couple of hours on pub med'? How many of those articles have you properly vetted?

Obviously anyone considering any intervention for their cancer treatment should discuss it with their oncologist whose opinion will be informed not only by access to the research but experience in interpretting it and treating patients as well as personal knowledge of your own situation.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: Belgarath on August 28, 2019, 09:21:02 AM
Hell a few seconds on Google puts the lies above to rest.

I know CarbShark is as bad as an evangelical when it comes to his food beliefs.  They are just as crazy as believing the world is flat.

But with the above spew of bullshit, he's gone to a new level of being a danger to people.  He's now the equivalent of Stanislaw Burzynski.

If you're not familiar with Dr. Burzynski, he's the guy that gets desperately ill people to come to Texas to be injected with animal piss to cure their cancer.

CarbShark is now inviting desperately ill people to stop their glucose intake, which will do nothing but harm to them.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/cancer/in-depth/cancer-causes/art-20044714

Quote
Myth: People with cancer shouldn't eat sugar, since it can cause cancer to grow faster.

Fact: Sugar doesn't make cancer grow faster. All cells, including cancer cells, depend on blood sugar (glucose) for energy. But giving more sugar to cancer cells doesn't speed their growth. Likewise, depriving cancer cells of sugar doesn't slow their growth.

This misconception may be based in part on a misunderstanding of positron emission tomography (PET) scans, which use a small amount of radioactive tracer — typically a form of glucose. All tissues in your body absorb some of this tracer, but tissues that are using more energy — including cancer cells — absorb greater amounts. For this reason, some people have concluded that cancer cells grow faster on sugar. But this isn't true.

However, there is some evidence that consuming large amounts of sugar is associated with an increased risk of certain cancers, including esophageal cancer. It can also lead to weight gain and increase the risk of obesity and diabetes, which may increase the risk of cancer.

Here's further evidence against CarbShark's self selected and cherry picked list above.  Lets ask an oncologist whether or not keto can cure cancer:


https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ketogenic-diets-for-cancer-hype-versus-science/

Now, if BurzynskiCarbShark even takes the time to read the two articles above, he will cherry pick those two and come up with further proof of his bullshit beliefs.

I've been on this forum since 2007.  This is the most irresponsible bullshit I've ever seen posted here and CarbShark should be ashamed of himself for advocating the equivalent of anti-vax crap here.

Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: Belgarath on August 28, 2019, 09:28:10 AM
'A couple of hours on pub med'? How many of those articles have you properly vetted?


We can translate this to say 'a couple of hours on pubmed cherry picking articles about glucose and cancer, none of which say what I want them to say'

That's basically how Carbzynski does his 'research'  He's basically about 1/4 step above Jenny McCarthy and her google university.
Title: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: CarbShark on August 28, 2019, 10:46:31 AM
Hell a few seconds on Google puts the lies above to rest.

I know CarbShark is as bad as an evangelical when it comes to his food beliefs.  They are just as crazy as believing the world is flat.


But with the above spew of bullshit, he's gone to a new level of being a danger to people.  He's now the equivalent of Stanislaw Burzynski.

That argument is called a smear you can’t argue the merits of what I’m discussing so you just lump it in with you favorite villain.

Quote
If you're not familiar with Dr. Burzynski, he's the guy that gets desperately ill people to come to Texas to be injected with animal piss to cure their cancer.

Very familiar with him. He also has no peer reviewed support for his recommendations, is the only one promoting them, rejects all science that disagrees with his positions, and, worst of all, encourages his patients to reject all oncological treatment options in favor of his.

I’m doing none of that.
Quote
CarbShark is now inviting desperately ill people to stop their glucose intake, which will do nothing but harm to them.
What harm?
Quote

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/cancer/in-depth/cancer-causes/art-20044714

Quote
Myth: People with cancer shouldn't eat sugar, since it can cause cancer to grow faster.

Fact: Sugar doesn't make cancer grow faster. All cells, including cancer cells, depend on blood sugar (glucose) for energy. But giving more sugar to cancer cells doesn't speed their growth. Likewise, depriving cancer cells of sugar doesn't slow their growth.

This misconception may be based in part on a misunderstanding of positron emission tomography (PET) scans, which use a small amount of radioactive tracer — typically a form of glucose. All tissues in your body absorb some of this tracer, but tissues that are using more energy — including cancer cells — absorb greater amounts. For this reason, some people have concluded that cancer cells grow faster on sugar. But this isn't true.

However, there is some evidence that consuming large amounts of sugar is associated with an increased risk of certain cancers, including esophageal cancer. It can also lead to weight gain and increase the risk of obesity and diabetes, which may increase the risk of cancer.

That position is more conservative than the mainstream and he’s got a couple facts wrong. The theory is based on the Warburg effect that goes back decades before PET scans.

And, yes, all cells in the body can burn glucose and do burn glucose if other fuels are not readily available, if glucose is low and ketones are present many cells will burn ketones instead of glucose. Further, cells can be insulin sensitive, meaning they put out insulin receptors to take in more glucose. Cancer cells are highly insulin sensitive and put out more insulin receptors than most normal cells.  The hypothesis is that with high blood glucose levels cancer cells have an unlimited supply of energy. Lower glucose levels limit the supply.
Quote
Here's further evidence against CarbShark's self selected and cherry picked list above.  Lets ask an oncologist whether or not keto can cure cancer:


https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ketogenic-diets-for-cancer-hype-versus-science/

Now, if BurzynskiCarbShark even takes the time to read the two articles
 


I read them both, of course. Did you read any of the articles I linked to?

I am not arguing, and none of the papers cited are arguing, that keto is better than or should be used instead of standard therapies.

It is being investigated as a complimentary therapy.

Quote
I've been on this forum since 2007.  This is the most irresponsible bullshit I've ever seen posted here and CarbShark should be ashamed of himself for advocating the equivalent of anti-vax crap here.

Again you can’t argue against the merits of the claim so you lump it in with you favorite villain. Bull shit.

And if you think I’m cherry-picking that shows first you haven’t read any of the articles or even just the abstracts, and it implies that there are far more articles on PubMed that dispute or contradict the claim.

There are not, but go ahead and look for yourself.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: CarbShark on August 28, 2019, 10:48:54 AM
'A couple of hours on pub med'? How many of those articles have you properly vetted?


We can translate this to say 'a couple of hours on pubmed cherry picking articles about glucose and cancer, none of which say what I want them to say'


Bullshit. Cherry picking implies there are far more articles and studies that contradict the hypothesis.

There aren’t and you have no basis for claiming there are.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: Harry Black on August 28, 2019, 02:56:19 PM
On another point, I strongly discourage ANYONE from giving unsolicited advice to any person with a serious illness.
People in that situation are dealing with quackery left and right and they are utterly exhausted in fending off every intellectually arrogant kook they know who just HAS to say something because they know this one weird trick will up their chances of survival.
Dont add to that pressure. Dont make them dread speaking to you. Just be there. If you know them well enough, maybe ask them how they are getting along with their doctor? Ask what kind of treatment they are getting MAYBE?
Dont be the asshole that gives them advice other than "Listen to your doctor" or "I hear this doctor is very well regarded, heres his number."
And if you do recommend someone, dont hound them about it.

Even if you are a doctor, you arent THEIR doctor (actually, no MD really needs me to say that)

You are not their saviour.

If they die, it has nothing to do with you for better or worse.

Leave sick people alone.

But the kind of person who needs to hear this will ignore it because they overestimate their own intelligence and feel the need to flex it at people.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: CarbShark on August 28, 2019, 03:11:25 PM
On another point, I strongly discourage ANYONE from giving unsolicited advice to any person with a serious illness.
People in that situation are dealing with quackery left and right and they are utterly exhausted in fending off every intellectually arrogant kook they know who just HAS to say something because they know this one weird trick will up their chances of survival.
Dont add to that pressure. Dont make them dread speaking to you. Just be there. If you know them well enough, maybe ask them how they are getting along with their doctor? Ask what kind of treatment they are getting MAYBE?
Dont be the asshole that gives them advice other than "Listen to your doctor" or "I hear this doctor is very well regarded, heres his number."
And if you do recommend someone, dont hound them about it.

Even if you are a doctor, you arent THEIR doctor (actually, no MD really needs me to say that)

You are not their saviour.

If they die, it has nothing to do with you for better or worse.

Leave sick people alone.

But the kind of person who needs to hear this will ignore it because they overestimate their own intelligence and feel the need to flex it at people.


I don't disagree with any of that (except maybe that last line). 

Sharing information is not giving advice.

Were I to have this conversation with either of my friends battling cancer it would be along the lines of:

"One promising area for treating cancer is using a strict keto diet to lower blood sugar, and give cancer cells less fuel. Using Keto together with the regular treatments (radiation; chemo; surgery; etc.) is being studied right now and the results so far are promising but nothing conclusive. Here's all the information I have on it (including some information about your specific cancer), maybe it's something to talk to your doctor about."


Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: Belgarath on August 28, 2019, 03:50:33 PM
And that last quote from yourself in the hypothetical discussion is precisely why you're an asshole and should feel ashamed of yourself.  It's not promising and it's not even real.

You're right about your criticism of my post above, however.  You're not Burzynski.  You're just the guy who tells his friend 'oh it's promising treatment, there are promising studies, but they aren't conclusive.  Not saying you should and not saying you shouldn't, just putting the information out there......'

Bet you a LOT of money you don't share with them the studies that COUNTER INDICATE restricting Glucose.  (Now you're going to tell me how there aren't any of those)

BTW, I agree with you 100% Harry, and even though CarbShark says he agrees too, he demonstrated with his hypothetical quote that he really doesn't.



Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: CarbShark on August 28, 2019, 04:02:46 PM
Bet you a LOT of money you don't share with them the studies that COUNTER INDICATE restricting Glucose.  (Now you're going to tell me how there aren't any of those)

No. I'm going to ask you for a citation from a peer reviewed journal. Shouldn't be too hard to find if they're there.

Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: daniel1948 on August 28, 2019, 04:17:39 PM
On another point, I strongly discourage ANYONE from giving unsolicited advice to any person with a serious illness.
People in that situation are dealing with quackery left and right and they are utterly exhausted in fending off every intellectually arrogant kook they know who just HAS to say something because they know this one weird trick will up their chances of survival.
Dont add to that pressure. Dont make them dread speaking to you. Just be there. If you know them well enough, maybe ask them how they are getting along with their doctor? Ask what kind of treatment they are getting MAYBE?
Dont be the asshole that gives them advice other than "Listen to your doctor" or "I hear this doctor is very well regarded, heres his number."
And if you do recommend someone, dont hound them about it.

Even if you are a doctor, you arent THEIR doctor (actually, no MD really needs me to say that)

You are not their saviour.

If they die, it has nothing to do with you for better or worse.

Leave sick people alone.

But the kind of person who needs to hear this will ignore it because they overestimate their own intelligence and feel the need to flex it at people.

The problem is that it's really hard for a True Believer not to push his or her OneTrueAnswerToEverything on all her/his friends, relatives, co-workers, etc. Whether it's a diet or a religion or a political party, if you are a True Believer you just really want all your friends to hear the Good News that there's an Answer.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: random poet on August 28, 2019, 04:23:50 PM
You've officially gone from "cutting carbs is a better diet" to "cutting carbs cures cancer."

You are off the deep end. (And you are fighting the lifeguard.)
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: Belgarath on August 28, 2019, 04:24:45 PM
Bet you a LOT of money you don't share with them the studies that COUNTER INDICATE restricting Glucose.  (Now you're going to tell me how there aren't any of those)

No. I'm going to ask you for a citation from a peer reviewed journal. Shouldn't be too hard to find if they're there.

See that's the difference between us.  I actually read and understand what the experts say.  You think you're better than the experts with your multi-hour pubmed search and misrepresentation of the data.
Title: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: CarbShark on August 28, 2019, 04:32:55 PM
On another point, I strongly discourage ANYONE from giving unsolicited advice to any person with a serious illness.
People in that situation are dealing with quackery left and right and they are utterly exhausted in fending off every intellectually arrogant kook they know who just HAS to say something because they know this one weird trick will up their chances of survival.
Dont add to that pressure. Dont make them dread speaking to you. Just be there. If you know them well enough, maybe ask them how they are getting along with their doctor? Ask what kind of treatment they are getting MAYBE?
Dont be the asshole that gives them advice other than "Listen to your doctor" or "I hear this doctor is very well regarded, heres his number."
And if you do recommend someone, dont hound them about it.

Even if you are a doctor, you arent THEIR doctor (actually, no MD really needs me to say that)

You are not their saviour.

If they die, it has nothing to do with you for better or worse.

Leave sick people alone.

But the kind of person who needs to hear this will ignore it because they overestimate their own intelligence and feel the need to flex it at people.

The problem is that it's really hard for a True Believer not to push his or her OneTrueAnswerToEverything on all her/his friends, relatives, co-workers, etc. Whether it's a diet or a religion or a political party, if you are a True Believer you just really want all your friends to hear the Good News that there's an Answer.


I do not promote LCHF diet to anyone who doesn’t ask (except here and a few other science, skeptical or medically oriented forums). If someone asks how I lost weight or brings it up I will discuss it.

This thread began because I am considering providing this information to two people for whom it might help and wouldn’t harm.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: CarbShark on August 28, 2019, 04:34:49 PM
Bet you a LOT of money you don't share with them the studies that COUNTER INDICATE restricting Glucose.  (Now you're going to tell me how there aren't any of those)

No. I'm going to ask you for a citation from a peer reviewed journal. Shouldn't be too hard to find if they're there.

See that's the difference between us.  I actually read and understand what the experts say.  You think you're better than the experts with your multi-hour pubmed search and misrepresentation of the data.


I’m sure there are other differences.

I read and understand (mostly) what’s in the peer reviewed articles in journals.

From what I can tell you don’t read any of those.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: bachfiend on August 28, 2019, 05:45:23 PM
On another point, I strongly discourage ANYONE from giving unsolicited advice to any person with a serious illness.
People in that situation are dealing with quackery left and right and they are utterly exhausted in fending off every intellectually arrogant kook they know who just HAS to say something because they know this one weird trick will up their chances of survival.
Dont add to that pressure. Dont make them dread speaking to you. Just be there. If you know them well enough, maybe ask them how they are getting along with their doctor? Ask what kind of treatment they are getting MAYBE?
Dont be the asshole that gives them advice other than "Listen to your doctor" or "I hear this doctor is very well regarded, heres his number."
And if you do recommend someone, dont hound them about it.

Even if you are a doctor, you arent THEIR doctor (actually, no MD really needs me to say that)

You are not their saviour.

If they die, it has nothing to do with you for better or worse.

Leave sick people alone.

But the kind of person who needs to hear this will ignore it because they overestimate their own intelligence and feel the need to flex it at people.

The problem is that it's really hard for a True Believer not to push his or her OneTrueAnswerToEverything on all her/his friends, relatives, co-workers, etc. Whether it's a diet or a religion or a political party, if you are a True Believer you just really want all your friends to hear the Good News that there's an Answer.


I do not promote LCHF diet to anyone who doesn’t ask (except here and a few other science, skeptical or medically oriented forums). If someone asks how I lost weight or brings it up I will discuss it.

This thread began because I am considering providing this information to two people for whom it might help and wouldn’t harm.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You certainly fulfill my definition of a proselytiser for your low carbohydrate/high fat ketogenic diet when you admit that you promote it unasked.

Are you certain that your diet wouldn’t harm people who are already sick from cancer?  You did read the dietary advice from the MD Anderson Cancer Center (one of America’s premier cancer hospitals) which noted that some cancers grow faster with high fat diets?

Even if some cancers are dependent on glucose for metabolism and survival, even on a low carbohydrate ketogenic diet, there’s still glucose circulating in the bloodstream.  Glucose dependent tumour cells are still going to get their glucose regardless.  Actually, in your notorious block dumped articles, there was one which referred to a case series of 2 from the early 20th century concerning 2 women with cancer who were given an insulin overdose in order to treat a psychiatric disorder, which apparently caused the cancers to regress.  My comments concerning this are: 1.  There’s a difference between a low carbohydrate diet and deliberately inducing a hypoglycaemic coma with an overdose of insulin.  2.  The patients might not have had cancer in the first place.

Even if your diet has a beneficial effect in some cancers, it’s likely to be similar to chemotherapy.  Cancers as they progress develop a plethora of mutations progressively with the formation of numerous clones of cancer cells, some dividing faster, some spreading more quickly, some more dependent on glucose, some less, etc.  As with cancer chemotherapy, if your diet is effective, it will kill the most susceptible cancer cells, reducing the cancer burden, but leaving the resistant cancer cells, which will then grow and divide, reforming the original tumour mass.  Like chemotherapy, your diet might add a little time.  Perhaps a few months.

As I’ve noted, by the time a cancer is apparent, it’s already around 3/4 along its course from initiation to death, by which time it’s not just one cancer, it’s many.

It would be more useful to prevent cancers before they actually develop, or at least in their very early stages.  Your diet could prevent cancer, but the long term studies necessary to know just aren’t available, a point I’ve made to you repeatedly in response to your proselytising.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: Belgarath on August 28, 2019, 05:59:26 PM
I still can't figure out why an Oncologist and the Mayo Clinic are wrong.  Let me guess.  'Big Sugar'  MIRITE?

Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: CarbShark on August 28, 2019, 06:24:40 PM
On another point, I strongly discourage ANYONE from giving unsolicited advice to any person with a serious illness.
People in that situation are dealing with quackery left and right and they are utterly exhausted in fending off every intellectually arrogant kook they know who just HAS to say something because they know this one weird trick will up their chances of survival.
Dont add to that pressure. Dont make them dread speaking to you. Just be there. If you know them well enough, maybe ask them how they are getting along with their doctor? Ask what kind of treatment they are getting MAYBE?
Dont be the asshole that gives them advice other than "Listen to your doctor" or "I hear this doctor is very well regarded, heres his number."
And if you do recommend someone, dont hound them about it.

Even if you are a doctor, you arent THEIR doctor (actually, no MD really needs me to say that)

You are not their saviour.

If they die, it has nothing to do with you for better or worse.

Leave sick people alone.

But the kind of person who needs to hear this will ignore it because they overestimate their own intelligence and feel the need to flex it at people.

The problem is that it's really hard for a True Believer not to push his or her OneTrueAnswerToEverything on all her/his friends, relatives, co-workers, etc. Whether it's a diet or a religion or a political party, if you are a True Believer you just really want all your friends to hear the Good News that there's an Answer.


I do not promote LCHF diet to anyone who doesn’t ask (except here and a few other science, skeptical or medically oriented forums). If someone asks how I lost weight or brings it up I will discuss it.

This thread began because I am considering providing this information to two people for whom it might help and wouldn’t harm.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You certainly fulfill my definition of a proselytiser for your low carbohydrate/high fat ketogenic diet when you admit that you promote it unasked.

Are you certain that your diet wouldn’t harm people who are already sick from cancer?  You did read the dietary advice from the MD Anderson Cancer Center (one of America’s premier cancer hospitals) which noted that some cancers grow faster with high fat diets?

I think that's a mischaracterization of the actual evidence.
Quote
Even if some cancers are dependent on glucose for metabolism and survival, even on a low carbohydrate ketogenic diet, there’s still glucose circulating in the bloodstream.  Glucose dependent tumour cells are still going to get their glucose regardless.

Perhaps. They hypothesis is that as cancer cells are insulin sensitive, and put out more insulin receptors than nearly any other kind of cell, that high insulin levels provide them an unlimited supply of glucose. But significantly lower insulin levels, and in particular no insulin spikes, will reduce (not eliminate) a significant proportion of the glucose taken in by cancer cells.
Quote
Actually, in your notorious block dumped articles, there was one which referred to a case series of 2 from the early 20th century concerning 2 women with cancer who were given an insulin overdose in order to treat a psychiatric disorder, which apparently caused the cancers to regress.  My comments concerning this are: 1.  There’s a difference between a low carbohydrate diet and deliberately inducing a hypoglycaemic coma with an overdose of insulin.  2.  The patients might not have had cancer in the first place.

Providing links to articles in peer reviewed scientific journals is notorious only in your mind. I think you picked the weakest point in the entire collection of articles, so nice cherry picking. Did you reach the rest of that article?


Quote
Even if your diet has a beneficial effect in some cancers, it’s likely to be similar to chemotherapy. 

Maybe not, maybe not. I don't think anyone is saying that's the case in humans. (There have been animal studies that have found that to be the case). I also don't any anyone would or should do a RCT to determine that.

All of these papers are based on using LCHF diets with traditional and standard therapies, like Chemo.
Quote

Cancers as they progress develop a plethora of mutations progressively with the formation of numerous clones of cancer cells, some dividing faster, some spreading more quickly, some more dependent on glucose, some less, etc.  As with cancer chemotherapy, if your diet is effective, it will kill the most susceptible cancer cells, reducing the cancer burden, but leaving the resistant cancer cells, which will then grow and divide, reforming the original tumour mass.  Like chemotherapy, your diet might add a little time.  Perhaps a few months.

You could say that about any cancer treatment, or, for that matter, any treatment of any infectious disease. 

In this case the hope is that the reduced fuel for the cancer cells will give chemo, radiation and other therapies the upper hand.
Quote
As I’ve noted, by the time a cancer is apparent, it’s already around 3/4 along its course from initiation to death, by which time it’s not just one cancer, it’s many.

I think that's an oversimplification, based on outdated information.

But, even if true, this strategy works on a cellular level metabolically. If it slows growth and reduces available energy to every cancer cell then it will work on single cells or huge tumors. It would potentially be beneficial for any time cancer cells are present.


Quote
It would be more useful to prevent cancers before they actually develop, or at least in their very early stages.  Your diet could prevent cancer, but the long term studies necessary to know just aren’t available, a point I’ve made to you repeatedly in response to your proselytising.

If that's the case then I'm much less likely to get cancer than any of my carb eating relatives.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: CarbShark on August 28, 2019, 06:26:25 PM
I still can't figure out why an Oncologist and the Mayo Clinic are wrong.  Let me guess.  'Big Sugar'  MIRITE?

I won't guess. I just don't know. Why don't you ask them?
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: bachfiend on August 28, 2019, 06:59:41 PM
CarbShark,

Your notorious block dumped list of selected articles is a desperate attempt to shift your responsibility to read the articles critically and discover all their caveats and flaws.  And all of them have caveats and flaws. 

I don’t have the time to go through the articles, and list them for you.  My lack of time doesn’t mean you’re right, and your diet is effective, either in treating advanced cancer or preventing cancer developing.

For that, you need actual studies, either long term observational studies of large populations on your diet, showing lower mortality and morbidity (including a reduced incidence of cancer)’ or the survival of patients with cancer on your diet compared to controls (you’d need at least one study for each type of cancer - there’s many types of cancer.  Lung cancer for example includes squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, small cell carcinoma...)

The studies just don’t exist.  Incidentally, high fat diets are associated with an increased risk of prostatic carcinoma, perhaps (some studies show an increased risk, some don’t).  It just illustrates that there’s no single article, or selected list of article, that will give a definite answer.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: daniel1948 on August 28, 2019, 07:00:34 PM
I still can't figure out why an Oncologist and the Mayo Clinic are wrong.  Let me guess.  'Big Sugar'  MIRITE?

It's because they don't understand that an educated layman with no medical training, spending two hours on PubMed, gains a far deeper understanding of the science than physicians with years of specialized medical training.

It's either that, or they're all in a grand conspiracy to keep us all sick so that they can sell us drugs. (The same friend of mine I mentioned in another thread, who refuses to read Shakespeare because he's a DWM, actually believes this.)
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: CarbShark on August 28, 2019, 07:16:34 PM
I still can't figure out why an Oncologist and the Mayo Clinic are wrong.  Let me guess.  'Big Sugar'  MIRITE?

It's because they don't understand that an educated layman with no medical training, spending two hours on PubMed, gains a far deeper understanding of the science than physicians with years of specialized medical training.

It's either that, or they're all in a grand conspiracy to keep us all sick so that they can sell us drugs. (The same friend of mine I mentioned in another thread, who refuses to read Shakespeare because he's a DWM, actually believes this.)

Those are not my claims at all. It sounds like you're arguing against someone else making a different point than dealing with the argument here and now.

Specifically, there have been three experts linked to here, none in peer reviewed scientific journals, and each one of them made specific arguments that are demonstrably false.

Maybe that's why their conclusions are different than most of the researches cited, because they are mistaken about some fairly basic facts about the issue. Or maybe it's just bias.

I don't know, but don't attribute claims or arguments to me that I'm not making.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: bachfiend on August 28, 2019, 07:24:33 PM
I still can't figure out why an Oncologist and the Mayo Clinic are wrong.  Let me guess.  'Big Sugar'  MIRITE?

It's because they don't understand that an educated layman with no medical training, spending two hours on PubMed, gains a far deeper understanding of the science than physicians with years of specialized medical training.

It's either that, or they're all in a grand conspiracy to keep us all sick so that they can sell us drugs. (The same friend of mine I mentioned in another thread, who refuses to read Shakespeare because he's a DWM, actually believes this.)

Those are not my claims at all. It sounds like you're arguing against someone else making a different point than dealing with the argument here and now.

Specifically, there have been three experts linked to here, none in peer reviewed scientific journals, and each one of them made specific arguments that are demonstrably false.

Maybe that's why their conclusions are different than most of the researches cited, because they are mistaken about some fairly basic facts about the issue. Or maybe it's just bias.

I don't know, but don't attribute claims or arguments to me that I'm not making.

CarbShark,

You’re a peer review fetishist.  A peer reviewed article, even in a reputable journal, doesn’t mean it’s right.  It just means it’s not obviously wrong, at least not to the 2 or 3 anonymous reviewers, who may have their own conflicts of interests. 

Whether a peer reviewed article actually turns out to be valid, or even plausible, only becomes apparent after the lapse of time, with more studies and more papers.

You’re giving medical advice on the basis of your ideological bias to your diet, lack of the required scientific and medical knowledge, and general ignorance.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: CarbShark on August 28, 2019, 07:42:42 PM
I am not providing medical advice.

There are worse fetishes to have on a skeptical forum.

I know the strength and weaknesses of peer reviewed articles in scientific journals.

What you need to watch out for is your assumption that anything that disagrees with what you “know “ is wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: bachfiend on August 28, 2019, 07:50:29 PM
CarbShark,

To put it another way.  What type of cancers do your two friends have?  What stage of clinical progression?  I gather one of them is stage 4.  There’s many different types of cancer.

Where are your studies showing the results of your low carbohydrate/high fat ketogenic diet on the specific cancers your friends have?  Unless you have the studies, you’re giving medical advice out of ignorance.  You might be causing harm without benefit.  Adopting a ketogenic diet isn’t without side effects.  Not something to be done lightly.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: CarbShark on August 28, 2019, 07:58:28 PM
I am not giving medical advice


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: daniel1948 on August 28, 2019, 08:43:44 PM
I still can't figure out why an Oncologist and the Mayo Clinic are wrong.  Let me guess.  'Big Sugar'  MIRITE?

It's because they don't understand that an educated layman with no medical training, spending two hours on PubMed, gains a far deeper understanding of the science than physicians with years of specialized medical training.

It's either that, or they're all in a grand conspiracy to keep us all sick so that they can sell us drugs. (The same friend of mine I mentioned in another thread, who refuses to read Shakespeare because he's a DWM, actually believes this.)

Those are not my claims at all. It sounds like you're arguing against someone else making a different point than dealing with the argument here and now.

Specifically, there have been three experts linked to here, none in peer reviewed scientific journals, and each one of them made specific arguments that are demonstrably false.

Maybe that's why their conclusions are different than most of the researches cited, because they are mistaken about some fairly basic facts about the issue. Or maybe it's just bias.

I don't know, but don't attribute claims or arguments to me that I'm not making.

You have claimed on numerous occasions that the medical establishment does not understand the science of nutrition. You have posted links to various papers, and you have not explicitly stated, but you have implied, that based on your reading of these papers you understand the science of nutrition better than the entire American medical establishment, whose recommendations differ from yours.

This was the basis for my satirical quip above.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: bachfiend on August 28, 2019, 08:44:41 PM
I am not providing medical advice.

There are worse fetishes to have on a skeptical forum.

I know the strength and weaknesses of peer reviewed articles in scientific journals.

What you need to watch out for is your assumption that anything that disagrees with what you “know “ is wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, you are providing medical advice, when you give your two friends ‘information’ when they’re vulnerable and sick with cancer.

No, you don’t know the strength and weaknesses of peer reviewed articles in scientific journals.  They’re not necessarily true; they’re just not obviously wrong to the 2 or 3 anonymous reviewers.

I don’t ‘assume’ that anything that disagrees with what I ‘know’ is wrong.  I apply an informal Bayesian analysis, and ask whether what I’ve just read increases or decreases the probability of something being true.  Your selected articles don’t increase the probability that starving a tumour by carbohydrate depletion helps.  Patients with terminal cancer almost always die in a state of cachexia (nutritional starvation).

I don’t disagree that a low carbohydrate/high fat ketogenic diet isn’t an acceptable diet, I just disagree that it’s the best diet, whether in the otherwise healthy, or in those with advanced cancer.  The necessary studies just aren’t available. 

It’s a fetish not to doubt everything you read, and not to check it, the more checking with the more surprising the thing read.

And answer my questions.  What type of cancers do your two friends have?  Where are the studies showing the efficacy of your diet in their specific cancers?
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: bachfiend on August 28, 2019, 08:47:27 PM
I am not giving medical advice


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And you shouldn’t, regardless of whether it’s dietary advice for the otherwise healthy, or dietary advice for people with advanced cancer.  Full stop.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: CarbShark on August 28, 2019, 09:03:53 PM
I still can't figure out why an Oncologist and the Mayo Clinic are wrong.  Let me guess.  'Big Sugar'  MIRITE?

It's because they don't understand that an educated layman with no medical training, spending two hours on PubMed, gains a far deeper understanding of the science than physicians with years of specialized medical training.

It's either that, or they're all in a grand conspiracy to keep us all sick so that they can sell us drugs. (The same friend of mine I mentioned in another thread, who refuses to read Shakespeare because he's a DWM, actually believes this.)

Those are not my claims at all. It sounds like you're arguing against someone else making a different point than dealing with the argument here and now.

Specifically, there have been three experts linked to here, none in peer reviewed scientific journals, and each one of them made specific arguments that are demonstrably false.

Maybe that's why their conclusions are different than most of the researches cited, because they are mistaken about some fairly basic facts about the issue. Or maybe it's just bias.

I don't know, but don't attribute claims or arguments to me that I'm not making.

You have claimed on numerous occasions that the medical establishment does not understand the science of nutrition. You have posted links to various papers, and you have not explicitly stated, but you have implied, that based on your reading of these papers you understand the science of nutrition better than the entire American medical establishment, whose recommendations differ from yours.

This was the basis for my satirical quip above.

That's not exactly what I have claimed and I have never implied that.

And your quip was sarcastic, not satirical.

My claim is that there is a mainstream hypothesis for diet and nutrition and an alternate hypothesis. There are serious and well qualified experts on both sides of the issue. I find the case made by the nutrition experts (mostly drs. some scientists, some researchers, some authors) who advocate the alternative hypothesis to be more persuasive than the mainstream experts.

No, I'm not relying my judgement and expertise over that of nutrition experts. I am relying on the judgement and expertise of the experts who generally find the alternate hypothesis more convincing. 

And, no, it's not the entire medical establishment. The alternate theory of diet and nutrition has gained more and more support in the nutrition community over the years.

So basically everything you just posted is wrong.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: CarbShark on August 28, 2019, 09:05:36 PM

And answer my questions.  What type of cancers do your two friends have?  Where are the studies showing the efficacy of your diet in their specific cancers?

Nope. Not answering any of your questions as long as you keep mischaracterizing what I am doing. I am not offering medical advice.

I suspect you keep making that accusation as you have a tendency to troll, and I'm not interested in playing along.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: Belgarath on August 28, 2019, 09:13:29 PM

And answer my questions.  What type of cancers do your two friends have?  Where are the studies showing the efficacy of your diet in their specific cancers?

Nope. Not answering any of your questions as long as you keep mischaracterizing what I am doing. I am not offering medical advice.

I suspect you keep making that accusation as you have a tendency to troll, and I'm not interested in playing along.

Bullshit, you are offering medical advice you zealot. 

I'm going to go tell my friend all about the Burzynski clinic and how he gives lots of people hope and how his stupid piss injecting clinic has had 'promising results' etc.  But I'll end it with 'I'm not telling you what to do, but it's promising'

Didn't give him medical advice, now did I?  Go ahead, kill off your friends, cause that's what is going to happen if he follows your not medical advice, not that you'd care because of your blind zealotry.



Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: bachfiend on August 28, 2019, 09:53:58 PM

And answer my questions.  What type of cancers do your two friends have?  Where are the studies showing the efficacy of your diet in their specific cancers?

Nope. Not answering any of your questions as long as you keep mischaracterizing what I am doing. I am not offering medical advice.

I suspect you keep making that accusation as you have a tendency to troll, and I'm not interested in playing along.

I’m not mischaracterising what you’re doing.  I’ll quote you from your first comment on this thread:

‘I have two close friends who have cancer now, one of them has known me since before I was a LCHF dieter, back when I was obese.  So I’m going to share this with him.  He’s fairly sceptical, and may dismiss it out of hand, but I would feel terrible if I did nothing, and then better studies start showing a beneficial effect while his cancer progresses.  (He’s doing chemo and after some progress his tumors have started growing again.)

You’re providing medical advice.  You didn’t write ‘should I provide the information?’  And you don’t have any knowledge about whether your diet actually has any efficacy in the specific cancers your friends have.  Your friends might be coming to harm if they have the specific cancers made worse by high fat diets.

I’m not trolling when I ask for evidence.  I’d be trolling if I provided unsupported assertions, as you do with your quasi-religious ideologically biased diet preference.

Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: CarbShark on August 29, 2019, 01:57:29 AM
Medical advice is a specific legal term.

I am not giving anyone medical advice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: CarbShark on August 29, 2019, 01:59:24 AM

And answer my questions.  What type of cancers do your two friends have?  Where are the studies showing the efficacy of your diet in their specific cancers?

Nope. Not answering any of your questions as long as you keep mischaracterizing what I am doing. I am not offering medical advice.

I suspect you keep making that accusation as you have a tendency to troll, and I'm not interested in playing along.

Bullshit, you are offering medical advice you zealot. 

I'm going to go tell my friend all about the Burzynski clinic and how he gives lots of people hope and how his stupid piss injecting clinic has had 'promising results' etc.  But I'll end it with 'I'm not telling you what to do, but it's promising'

Didn't give him medical advice, now did I?  Go ahead, kill off your friends, cause that's what is going to happen if he follows your not medical advice, not that you'd care because of your blind zealotry.


I wasn’t sure what reaction I’d get here but I’d hoped it would be rational and informed.

Obviously my expectation was too high.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: lonely moa on August 29, 2019, 02:11:09 AM
From my reading of some clinicians, a ketogenic diet is a helpful adjunct to conventional therapy for some cancers. 

Overweight and obese women are more at risk of breast cancer than lean women.  The standard american diets, high in processed carbs is very likely to add to the size and number of ones fat cells.  I would add there is evidence that the high fraction of calories in the SAD diet from PUFAs might also increase the risk.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: CarbShark on August 29, 2019, 02:32:02 AM
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_advice?wprov=sfti1

Quote
Medical advice is the provision of a formal professional opinion regarding what a specific individual should or should not do to restore or preserve health.[1] Typically, medical advice involves giving a diagnosis and/or prescribing a treatment for medical condition.[2]

Medical advice can be distinguished from medical information, which is the relation of facts. Discussing facts and information is considered a fundamental free speech right and is not considered medical advice. Medical advice can also be distinguished from personal advice, even if the advice concerns medical care.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: bachfiend on August 29, 2019, 02:36:24 AM

And answer my questions.  What type of cancers do your two friends have?  Where are the studies showing the efficacy of your diet in their specific cancers?

Nope. Not answering any of your questions as long as you keep mischaracterizing what I am doing. I am not offering medical advice.

I suspect you keep making that accusation as you have a tendency to troll, and I'm not interested in playing along.

Bullshit, you are offering medical advice you zealot. 

I'm going to go tell my friend all about the Burzynski clinic and how he gives lots of people hope and how his stupid piss injecting clinic has had 'promising results' etc.  But I'll end it with 'I'm not telling you what to do, but it's promising'

Didn't give him medical advice, now did I?  Go ahead, kill off your friends, cause that's what is going to happen if he follows your not medical advice, not that you'd care because of your blind zealotry.


I wasn’t sure what reaction I’d get here but I’d hoped it would be rational and informed.

Obviously my expectation was too high.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, you’d get a rational and informed reaction if you were rational and informed in your assertions.  But you’re neither, so it’s hardly surprising that occasionally you’ll get harsh reactions.

And you’re giving medical advice.  You’re advising what people with medical conditions should do.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: bachfiend on August 29, 2019, 02:44:34 AM
From my reading of some clinicians, a ketogenic diet is a helpful adjunct to conventional therapy for some cancers. 

Overweight and obese women are more at risk of breast cancer than lean women.  The standard american diets, high in processed carbs is very likely to add to the size and number of ones fat cells.  I would add there is evidence that the high fraction of calories in the SAD diet from PUFAs might also increase the risk.

You’re even less informed than CarbShark, and that’s saying something.  The standard American diet is high in sugar, fat and salt.  ‘Processed carbs’ is an oxymoron.  There’s processed food, and highly processed food, but no processed carbohydrates, save in fermentation.  There are processed fats though, including trans fats, which should be avoided.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: John Albert on August 29, 2019, 05:43:36 AM
This thread is beyond the pale.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: Harry Black on August 29, 2019, 07:54:43 AM
This thread is beyond the pale.
This is no different to anyone else showing up out of the blue to promote woo.
Tackling this kind of thing is what we do.
I think anyone reading this thread to see the viability of such a diet for treating cancer would come away under no illusions as to what is the takeaway of most skeptics.
You can go around and around with a tireless rebutter for years (we literally have) but as long as disagreement is voiced then we have done what we are here to do.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: daniel1948 on August 29, 2019, 10:48:27 AM

... your quip was sarcastic, not satirical.

Yes. I chose my word poorly. At my age, sometimes a word I want slips my mind. Thank you for the correction.

My claim is that there is a mainstream hypothesis for diet and nutrition and an alternate hypothesis. There are serious and well qualified experts on both sides of the issue.

You commit the fallacy of giving equal weight to very unequal positions. There is a preponderance of evidence on one side (the mainstream) and there are a few outliers who dispute the preponderance of evidence and advocate fringe ideas (the "alternate hypothesis").

We know that it's possible to lose weight on any diet if it results in expending more energy than it absorbs, and if you are committed enough to stick with it. In this way, LCHF diets "work" for weight loss, as do LFHC diets, balanced diets, hamburger and french fry diets, raw-food diets, and any other kind of diet that results in expending more energy than you absorb. But except for vitamin deficiencies, which can be cured with the appropriate foods, or starvation, which can be cured by an increase in calories, no diet will cure illness.

You've fallen into the trap of believing that because LCHF helped you to lose weight, it can also cure conditions other than obesity. You have fetishized your preferred weight-loss diet into The Answer To Everything.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: stands2reason on August 29, 2019, 11:05:02 AM
So, what specific cancers do they have? As has been noted (in the Gorski SBM article), the majority of cancers have a Warburg effect. But of course, not all. Someone mentioned also that they can grow quicker in ketosis (which ones?). And so on. Now, I clearly think CarbShark has a conflict of interest, but as he pointed out, he isn't giving medical advice. If he told his specific friends to try a diet to weaken their cancer, then it would be medical advice.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: CarbShark on August 29, 2019, 11:36:19 AM
This thread is beyond the pale.
This is no different to anyone else showing up out of the blue to promote woo.

That's a common misconception among skeptics. It's either the standard of care mainstream practice or it can be dismissed as woo.

The alternate theory of diet and nutrition, in general, and the metabolic approach to cancer treatment using the Warburg effect are both gaining wider acceptance in both fields (nutrition/oncology).  Some oncologists actually provide patients with LC diet instructions and steer them away from he accepted diet protocols which have never shown any effectiveness in any studies, and are simply based on the standard nutrition guidelines.

Quote

Tackling this kind of thing is what we do.
I think anyone reading this thread to see the viability of such a diet for treating cancer would come away under no illusions as to what is the takeaway of most skeptics.

What I'm seeing from most skeptics here is more of an unthinking knee-jerk reaction, comparing the approach to woo and quackery and making personal attacks.

What skeptics should be doing is actually looking at the information provided, doing their own research, and discussing the merits of the approach.

Quote
You can go around and around with a tireless rebutter for years (we literally have) but as long as disagreement is voiced then we have done what we are here to do.

In form, not substance.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: random poet on August 29, 2019, 11:47:38 AM
What skeptics should be doing is actually looking at the information provided, doing their own research, and discussing the merits of the approach.
This is the problem. People "doing their own research" is how you get crackpots. Skeptics don't do research. They listen to the experts, actual members of the scientific community.

You are not "doing your own research." You are not qualified to do nutritional research. You are just seeking out articles and trials that reinforce your bias, misunderstanding them or reading spurious ones. People "doing their own research" can derive any effect they want from any body of study they can find. This is just not how skepticism (or science, for that matter) works.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: CarbShark on August 29, 2019, 12:41:42 PM
What skeptics should be doing is actually looking at the information provided, doing their own research, and discussing the merits of the approach.
This is the problem. People "doing their own research" is how you get crackpots.

It’s how you people get informed. Are you saying if you or someone close was diagnosed with some disease you wouldn’t google the hell out of it and search pub med and read any books on the subject?

Quote
Skeptics don't do research.
That seems to be the case around here mostly.

Quote
They listen to the experts, actual members of the scientific community.

And when there is no consensus among the experts, then what?
Quote
You are not "doing your own research." You are not qualified to do nutritional research. You are just seeking out articles and trials that reinforce your bias, misunderstanding them or reading spurious ones.

I think those are all knee-jerk assumptions made without any basis.

If you’d read just a few of the pages I linked to you’d realize that was not correct.

 I have taken a very measured and controlled approach, i have not made claims that are not fully claims supported


Quote
People "doing their own research" can derive any effect they want from any body of study they can find. This is just not how skepticism (or science, for that matter) works.

That gets repeated a lot here. And it’s very unscientific and not very skeptical.

There are sometimes outlier or individual or biased studies that find spurious results, but that’s why I never rely on individual articles.

If you looked at those links you’d find several reviews of studies and numerous studies with similar findings.

If you think my results are biased or filtered or I’m ignoring recent valid quality studies that contradict the hypothesis the I’d love to see them.

I’ve looked.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: Harry Black on August 29, 2019, 01:15:00 PM
We have been watching you lose this argument over and over for almost 10 years now without the self awareness or humility to notice.
Carrying threads on for years, ignoring or wriggling away from actual experts in the subject itself (and other subjects for that matter).
Most people here probably have some experience in debating you on an issue that they are actual experts in and you are not, so I dont think you are going to find much appetite to bother engaging your arguments which has proven to be a waste of time in the past.
Normally you might get some bites but this subject is too personal for too many of us for people to entertain the notion of fucking around here or lending you the smokescreen of a debate.

Whether you think its fair or not, you have a reputation as a dishonest debater. Aside from the politics issues, you are so pedantic that you cant allow the chance to correct sarcasm vs satire pass you by, but when the only person who takes your side in diet discussion makes some of the most scientifically illiterate posts on this board (regularly) you never, ever correct them. Why on earth would anyone take you seriously or want to engage you on the terms you demand?
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: random poet on August 29, 2019, 01:36:21 PM
(click to show/hide)
You are not qualified to do nutritional research.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: CarbShark on August 29, 2019, 03:08:20 PM

Skepticism does not end at the mainstream position.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: CarbShark on August 29, 2019, 03:31:26 PM
We have been watching you lose this argument over and over for almost 10 years now without the self awareness or humility to notice.

That's not how I would characterize this argument at all, but you're gonna believe what you want.

In the bigger world (outside the narrow confines of this boys club) the argument for the alternate hypothesis is clearly winning.

Quote
Carrying threads on for years, ignoring or wriggling away from actual experts in the subject itself (and other subjects for that matter).

If you're a skeptic, it should not be about who is making the arguments, but the arguments being made.

Quote
Normally you might get some bites but this subject is too personal for too many of us for people to entertain the notion of fucking around here or lending you the smokescreen of a debate.

Both my wife and I lost our mothers to cancer. My wife lost her best friend to cancer (her kids grew up with ours). My uncle, the relative who lived closest to us, was recovering from chemo, fell down and injured his spine  and was paralyzed mostly from the neck down. When his cancer came back he chose not to fight it. I visited him in his nursing home nearly every day for the last two years of his life.

All of this happened during the the last few years.

It's pretty fucking personal to me too.

Also, this entire issue of LCHF diet and cancer has not come up overnight. I've been following this issue for years, and I listen to experts, and have done a lot of reading. I started this thread because I was wondering if any the numerous studies that are underway had started producing results, and found lots of recent articles on pubmed.

Quote
Whether you think its fair or not, you have a reputation as a dishonest debater. Aside from the politics issues, you are so pedantic that you cant allow the chance to correct sarcasm vs satire pass you by, but when the only person who takes your side in diet discussion makes some of the most scientifically illiterate posts on this board (regularly) you never, ever correct them. Why on earth would anyone take you seriously or want to engage you on the terms you demand?

That may be my reputation among the so-called skeptics in this boys club, but that's divorced from reality.

If you were paying attention you'd notice that I do correct anyone, sometimes pedantically, including LM when he makes an occasional error.

And, if someone makes a post mischaracterizing my position, filled with insults and ad hominem, then, no, I will not let a simple vocabulary error pass me by.

Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: stands2reason on August 29, 2019, 04:19:53 PM
I pressed quote so I wouldn't have to wait for the moving text.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: daniel1948 on August 29, 2019, 04:39:46 PM
What skeptics should be doing is actually looking at the information provided, doing their own research, and discussing the merits of the approach.
This is the problem. People "doing their own research" is how you get crackpots. Skeptics don't do research. They listen to the experts, actual members of the scientific community.

You are not "doing your own research." You are not qualified to do nutritional research. You are just seeking out articles and trials that reinforce your bias, misunderstanding them or reading spurious ones. People "doing their own research" can derive any effect they want from any body of study they can find. This is just not how skepticism (or science, for that matter) works.

^ This!!!

Surfing the internet for papers that support your preconceived ideas is not research. Research is done by people with actual education in the field, usually with doctorates, sometimes assisted by post-grads. And when "research" is done by people who've firmly made up their minds in advance, the results are worthless.

CarbShark: Your "research" consists of searching for papers that agree with your prior conclusion. All this demonstrates is that you are very good at finding papers that agree with your prior conclusion. This is not research. And it does not serve the cause of knowledge.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: random poet on August 29, 2019, 04:57:03 PM

Skepticism does not end at the mainstream position.
I'm not sure how you think this is related to what I said. Whatever the mainstream position might be, or the value of any non-mainstream positions, you are not qualified.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: bachfiend on August 29, 2019, 04:57:42 PM

And answer my questions.  What type of cancers do your two friends have?  Where are the studies showing the efficacy of your diet in their specific cancers?

Nope. Not answering any of your questions as long as you keep mischaracterizing what I am doing. I am not offering medical advice.

I suspect you keep making that accusation as you have a tendency to troll, and I'm not interested in playing along.

I’m not mischaracterising what you’re doing.  I’ll quote you from your first comment on this thread:

‘I have two close friends who have cancer now, one of them has known me since before I was a LCHF dieter, back when I was obese.  So I’m going to share this with him.  He’s fairly sceptical, and may dismiss it out of hand, but I would feel terrible if I did nothing, and then better studies start showing a beneficial effect while his cancer progresses.  (He’s doing chemo and after some progress his tumors have started growing again.)

You’re providing medical advice.  You didn’t write ‘should I provide the information?’  And you don’t have any knowledge about whether your diet actually has any efficacy in the specific cancers your friends have.  Your friends might be coming to harm if they have the specific cancers made worse by high fat diets.

I’m not trolling when I ask for evidence.  I’d be trolling if I provided unsupported assertions, as you do with your quasi-religious ideologically biased diet preference.

I’m repeating one of my previous comments.  I read your linked articles, and I didn’t find them convincing.  A bit of pure, not applied, science.  Some conjecture.  Caveats, with comments that there’s need for more studies, etc, etc, etc.

Where are the studies showing the efficacy of your low carbohydrate/high fat ketogenic diet in specific cancers, such as the cancers of your two friends?

Sceptics don’t reject everything out of hand.  They ask for evidence, adequate evidence.  Future evidence doesn’t count, as you allude to when you comment that ‘and then better studies start showing a beneficial effect...’
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: John Albert on August 29, 2019, 06:35:05 PM
This thread is beyond the pale.

This is no different to anyone else showing up out of the blue to promote woo.
Tackling this kind of thing is what we do.

Absolutely we have an obligation to push back, especially when the woo is potentially life-threatening. Same goes for the neo-fascist garbage. It's not just woo, it's very dangerous woo with fatal consequences.


I think anyone reading this thread to see the viability of such a diet for treating cancer would come away under no illusions as to what is the takeaway of most skeptics.

I would certainly hope so. But you never know. Alt-med woo is particularly insidious because its potential for harm can be so much more immediate and personal. And people facing difficult medical choices sometimes make bad decisions in the dim light of false hope.

The best we can do is the best we can do. And aside from censoring the promotion of medical advice in a "Health, Fitness, Nutrition, and Medicine" forum, offering strong counterarguments appears to be the best we can do. 


You can go around and around with a tireless rebutter for years (we literally have) but as long as disagreement is voiced then we have done what we are here to do.

No argument from me there.

My primary objection is to CarbShark's creation of this thread in the first place. People dealing with a life-threatening illness don't need to be inundated with any more of this garbage. The level of ego tripping is just gross. It's especially offensive at a time like this, when one of our own community is locked in a battle of his own.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: CarbShark on August 29, 2019, 06:45:21 PM

Skepticism does not end at the mainstream position.
I'm not sure how you think this is related to what I said. Whatever the mainstream position might be, or the value of any non-mainstream positions, you are not qualified.

Well that's your opinion and you are entitled to it. Obviously I disagree, and I'd go further to say in my opinion you are not qualified to judge whether I (or anyone else for that matter) am qualified to do this kind of research.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: bachfiend on August 29, 2019, 06:59:29 PM

Skepticism does not end at the mainstream position.
I'm not sure how you think this is related to what I said. Whatever the mainstream position might be, or the value of any non-mainstream positions, you are not qualified.

Well that's your opinion and you are entitled to it. Obviously I disagree, and I'd go further to say in my opinion you are not qualified to judge whether I (or anyone else for that matter) am qualified to do this kind of research.

You’re not doing ‘research.’  You’re just doing Google searches, and reading whatever appears to support your ideologically motivated diet.

I’ll ask again.  Where are the studies showing the efficacy of your low carbohydrate/high fat ketogenic diet in specific cancers, including the types of cancer your two friends have?

If the studies exist, then the results should be reasonably clear cut.  Survival should be increased significantly by months, or better still, years.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: CarbShark on August 29, 2019, 07:05:39 PM

Skepticism does not end at the mainstream position.
I'm not sure how you think this is related to what I said. Whatever the mainstream position might be, or the value of any non-mainstream positions, you are not qualified.

Well that's your opinion and you are entitled to it. Obviously I disagree, and I'd go further to say in my opinion you are not qualified to judge whether I (or anyone else for that matter) am qualified to do this kind of research.

You’re not doing ‘research.’  You’re just doing Google searches, and reading whatever appears to support your ideologically motivated diet.

I’ll ask again.  Where are the studies showing the efficacy of your low carbohydrate/high fat ketogenic diet in specific cancers, including the types of cancer your two friends have?

If the studies exist, then the results should be reasonably clear cut.  Survival should be increased significantly by months, or better still, years.

Just to remind you, I'm not here to entertain trolling
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: daniel1948 on August 29, 2019, 07:09:01 PM
... I read your linked articles, and I didn’t find them convincing. 

You're not supposed to read walls of links. You're just supposed to be impressed by how many there are.  ;)
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: daniel1948 on August 29, 2019, 07:10:38 PM

Skepticism does not end at the mainstream position.
I'm not sure how you think this is related to what I said. Whatever the mainstream position might be, or the value of any non-mainstream positions, you are not qualified.

Well that's your opinion and you are entitled to it. Obviously I disagree, and I'd go further to say in my opinion you are not qualified to judge whether I (or anyone else for that matter) am qualified to do this kind of research.

You’re not doing ‘research.’  You’re just doing Google searches, and reading whatever appears to support your ideologically motivated diet.

I’ll ask again.  Where are the studies showing the efficacy of your low carbohydrate/high fat ketogenic diet in specific cancers, including the types of cancer your two friends have?

If the studies exist, then the results should be reasonably clear cut.  Survival should be increased significantly by months, or better still, years.

Just to remind you, I'm not here to entertain trolling

Asking for actual facts is trolling???
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: CarbShark on August 29, 2019, 07:23:55 PM

Skepticism does not end at the mainstream position.
I'm not sure how you think this is related to what I said. Whatever the mainstream position might be, or the value of any non-mainstream positions, you are not qualified.

Well that's your opinion and you are entitled to it. Obviously I disagree, and I'd go further to say in my opinion you are not qualified to judge whether I (or anyone else for that matter) am qualified to do this kind of research.

You’re not doing ‘research.’  You’re just doing Google searches, and reading whatever appears to support your ideologically motivated diet.

I’ll ask again.  Where are the studies showing the efficacy of your low carbohydrate/high fat ketogenic diet in specific cancers, including the types of cancer your two friends have?

If the studies exist, then the results should be reasonably clear cut.  Survival should be increased significantly by months, or better still, years.

Just to remind you, I'm not here to entertain trolling

Asking for actual facts is trolling???

Depends on how you ask.

No you are supposed to read the links, and reference them specifically if you have issues with them.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: John Albert on August 29, 2019, 07:29:40 PM
I'd go further to say in my opinion you are not qualified to judge whether I (or anyone else for that matter) am qualified to do this kind of research.

What you're doing is not research.

You're just Googling PubMed for research papers, cherry-picked according to their titles or conclusions. Then you're copy-pasting masses of links to those papers on a general interest Web forum which is not populated by medical experts. Then you're asserting that this highly technical information represents evidence to support your own opinion. That is, at best, a fringe opinion which runs contrary to the general consensus of the worldwide medical establishment.

You are not a doctor, a biologist, a dietitian, or even a medical researcher. You're a layman with an Internet connection. In "evaluating" these studies you lack the education, skills, and industry experience to fully understand the methodology and statistical analysis, let alone the professional reputations of the authors and publishers of the studies.

By blindly mass-posting links to highly technical studies on a Web forum for nonprofessionals, what you're doing is a virtual Gish gallop. It's a form of burden-shifting to assert that these studies prove you're right, and defy everybody else to make sense of them when you clearly don't understand them yourself.

In short, you're working backwards from a preferred conclusion, seeking to legitimize your own preconceived opinion on an open Web forum.

That's not research. It's just an amateur tactic for promoting pseudoscience.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: bachfiend on August 29, 2019, 07:46:29 PM

Skepticism does not end at the mainstream position.
I'm not sure how you think this is related to what I said. Whatever the mainstream position might be, or the value of any non-mainstream positions, you are not qualified.

Well that's your opinion and you are entitled to it. Obviously I disagree, and I'd go further to say in my opinion you are not qualified to judge whether I (or anyone else for that matter) am qualified to do this kind of research.

You’re not doing ‘research.’  You’re just doing Google searches, and reading whatever appears to support your ideologically motivated diet.

I’ll ask again.  Where are the studies showing the efficacy of your low carbohydrate/high fat ketogenic diet in specific cancers, including the types of cancer your two friends have?

If the studies exist, then the results should be reasonably clear cut.  Survival should be increased significantly by months, or better still, years.

Just to remind you, I'm not here to entertain trolling

Asking for actual facts is trolling???

Depends on how you ask.

No you are supposed to read the links, and reference them specifically if you have issues with them.

I have issues with all of the links you’ve dumped in that they don’t show that your ideologically biased low carbohydrate/high fat ketogenic diet has any efficacy in prolonging survival significantly in any type of cancer, including the cancers your two friends have.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: John Albert on August 29, 2019, 07:52:28 PM
CarbShark,

If you're correct about your assertions regarding the superiority of LCHF diets for every aspect of human health, then you're wasting your time arguing with us. You owe it to the world to become a real researcher, and do the science.

Organize all your research studies, evaluate the data, perform a meta-analysis, write up an article and submit it to the scientific journals for publication. The worst that could happen is they reject you with the same kind of treatment you're getting here. On the other hand, if you're really right about all of this then it could change the way the entire world thinks about nutrition.

Don't hesitate. Quit arguing your case here and take it direct to the establishment. Your Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine is waiting...
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: CarbShark on August 29, 2019, 08:15:02 PM
I'd go further to say in my opinion you are not qualified to judge whether I (or anyone else for that matter) am qualified to do this kind of research.

What you're doing is not research.

It certainly meets the dictionary definition of research. Maybe not your personal definition, but I'm fine with that.




Quote
You're just Googling PubMed for research papers, cherry-picked according to their titles or conclusions.     

Nope. Google is not involved, and again, if you're accusing me of cherry picking, then you are implying there are a larger number of articles, studies and or papers that I'm rejecting because they don't meet some biased criteria.

For the umpteenth time, that's not the case. And the very first link is a link to pubmed, where you can very easily do a search to prove I'm cherry picking.

Quote
Then you're copy-pasting masses of links to those papers on a general interest Web forum which is not populated by medical experts. Then you're asserting that this highly technical information represents evidence to support your own opinion.

Masses? How many links equals a mass?

And, no, I'm not making those kinds of assertions about these pages. That's you reading something into this thread that's not there. (Go ahead look through my posts, prove me wrong).

Some of the information is indeed highly technical, but most of it is not, and even those that are highly technical have digests, summaries and conclusions that very accessible. They make for good reading, I encourage you to have a look.

Quote
That is, at best, a fringe opinion which runs contrary to the general consensus of the worldwide medical establishment.



I don't think that's the case today. Maybe 20 years ago, certainly 30 years ago. The alternate hypothesis has had more and more acceptance of various aspects over the years.

Remember when the mainstream insisted that dietary cholesterol was the cause of heart disease? People on this forum were furious when I presented pubmed pages that disputed that, and accused me of cherry picking, etc. Yet, today the mainstream position is that dietary cholesterol for nearly everyone is not a nutrient of concern (the exceptions being rare conditions people may have).

Same with the sugar vs. fat debate. The mainstream position was sugar was empty calories and that was the only reason to avoid it, and fat contributed to heart disease. Now, the low-fat model has been rejected by most (not all) of the nutrition community, and added sugar is singled out not just for its calories but also for it's health effect.



Quote
You are not a doctor, a biologist, a dietitian, or even a medical researcher.

Never claimed to be. Nor have I ever claimed to be an expert

Quote
You're a layman with an Internet connection.


Never claimed to be anything more than that.

Quote
In "evaluating" these studies you lack the requisite education, skills, and medical industry experience to fully understand the procedural methodology and statistical analysis, let alone the professional reputations of the authors and publishers of the studies.

For many of these studies there are indeed aspects I don't fully understand. No doubt.   

Quote
By blindly mass-posting links to highly technical medical studies on a Web forum for non-medical professionals, what you're doing is a virtual Gish gallop. It's a form of burden-shifting to assert that these studies prove you're right and defy everybody else make sense of them when you clearly don't understand them yourself.

That's not my method, and that's not a good characterization of the result.

Quote
In short, you're working backwards from a preferred conclusion, seeking to legitimize your own preconceived opinion on an open Web forum.

Again, that's not how I'm working and you have no basis to make that accusation.
Quote
That's not research. It's just an amateur tactic for promoting pseudoscience.


It's a form of research. Maybe one you don't like but it is a form of research.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: bachfiend on August 29, 2019, 08:23:53 PM
No, CarbShark’s ‘research’ isn’t research:

https://www.westernsydney.edu.au/research/researchers/preparing_a_grant_application/dest_definition_of_research
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: CarbShark on August 29, 2019, 08:42:07 PM
No, CarbShark’s ‘research’ isn’t research:

https://www.westernsydney.edu.au/research/researchers/preparing_a_grant_application/dest_definition_of_research

That is one very specific and technical definition of the word. I agree what I'm doing does not meet that specific definition. (nor did I every claim to).

I suppose you could quibble about whether I'm being careful, diligent or studious, but at the very least I'm certainly collecting information about a particular subject.



Research | Definition of Research by Merriam-Webster (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/research)

Quote
research noun
re·​search | \ ri-ˈsərch  , ˈrē-ˌsərch  \
Definition of research (Entry 1 of 2)
1 : careful or diligent search
2 : studious inquiry or examination
especially : investigation or experimentation aimed at the discovery and interpretation of facts, revision of accepted theories or laws in the light of new facts, or practical application of such new or revised theories or laws
3 : the collecting of information about a particular subject
research verb
researched; researching; researches
Definition of research (Entry 2 of 2)
transitive verb

1 : to search or investigate exhaustively
research a problem
2 : to do research for
research a book
intransitive verb

: to engage in research
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: Belgarath on August 29, 2019, 09:12:15 PM
No, CarbShark’s ‘research’ isn’t research:

https://www.westernsydney.edu.au/research/researchers/preparing_a_grant_application/dest_definition_of_research

That is one very specific and technical definition of the word. I agree what I'm doing does not meet that specific definition. (nor did I every claim to).



So lets see here.  When we call what you do, 'medical advice' you complain that we don't use a specific technical definition of that phrase, now when bachfiend is using a specific technical definition of the term 'research' you have a fit.

Make up your mind Burzynshark.

Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: bachfiend on August 29, 2019, 09:49:06 PM
CarbShark,

You’re not doing research.  You’re doing motivated reading.  You’ve got your conclusion, that your low carbohydrate/high fat ketogenic diet is ‘best’ for everything, and you’re looking for ‘stuff’ to support it.

Where’s your evidence that your ideologically biased diet has efficacy in treating specific cancers?  On the evidence you’ve presented, you’re wanting to go from phase 0 to phase 4 without going through the intervening phases:

https://www.tga.gov.au/book-page/clinical-trial-phases-and-stages
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: CarbShark on August 29, 2019, 10:40:54 PM
No, CarbShark’s ‘research’ isn’t research:

https://www.westernsydney.edu.au/research/researchers/preparing_a_grant_application/dest_definition_of_research

That is one very specific and technical definition of the word. I agree what I'm doing does not meet that specific definition. (nor did I every claim to).



So lets see here.  When we call what you do, 'medical advice' you complain that we don't use a specific technical definition of that phrase, now when bachfiend is using a specific technical definition of the term 'research' you have a fit.

OK, Fine, show me a definition of medical advice (not just one you pull out of your ass)  that covers this and we'll talk.


Also, when I looked up the definition for research, the one I posted was the first one that came up and the next two were basically the same.

How many results did BF have to go through before finding one that was exclusive?

And at the same time they accuse me of cherry picking.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: bachfiend on August 29, 2019, 11:02:05 PM
No, CarbShark’s ‘research’ isn’t research:

https://www.westernsydney.edu.au/research/researchers/preparing_a_grant_application/dest_definition_of_research

That is one very specific and technical definition of the word. I agree what I'm doing does not meet that specific definition. (nor did I every claim to).



So lets see here.  When we call what you do, 'medical advice' you complain that we don't use a specific technical definition of that phrase, now when bachfiend is using a specific technical definition of the term 'research' you have a fit.

OK, Fine, show me a definition of medical advice (not just one you pull out of your ass)  that covers this and we'll talk.


Also, when I looked up the definition for research, the one I posted was the first one that came up and the next two were basically the same.

How many results did BF have to go through before finding one that was exclusive?

And at the same time they accuse me of cherry picking.

I took the first one that came up on the Google search.  What you’re doing in your ‘research’ is no more than a literature search, and an inadequate one at that, but which is necessary as a prelude for doing research.

Definition of ‘medical advice:’

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/medical-advice

You’re giving advice, and it’s regarding a medical condition, so it’s ‘medical advice.’  Just because legally you wouldn’t get done for practicing medicine without a licence or be struck off the medical registry for malpractice, doesn’t mean you’re not giving medical advice.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: Belgarath on August 30, 2019, 07:03:56 AM
Quote
WHY LAY PEOPLE SHOULD NOT DISPENSE MEDICAL ADVICE:

It's inappropriate for lay persons to recommend and actively promote medical practices (standard, investigational, or alternative) as recipes for survival to other patients for the following reasons: 

    (1) Each lymphoma (even if of the same diagnosis) can be unique clinically, such as:
    growth rate, sensitivity to treatments,  location near vital organs, bone marrow involvement, and so on.

    (2) The biology of the lymphoma and the patient can have unique characteristics that will result in very different clinical courses, and responses to the same treatments.  For example, normal genetic variations in an individual's immune system may influence the response to Rituxan.

    (3) Each case can be unique, such as the patient's age, general health, symptoms, blood counts, treatment history, risk tolerance, secondary medical conditions, and access to therapies.

    (4) By definition, lay persons are not medical professionals and are likely to have gaps in knowledge.

    (5) Even a medical professional will not, and ought not, dispense medical advice without directly examining the patient, and having access to the complete medical history, the details of the diagnosis, the most current lab results, imaging reports, and so on.

The clinical judgment of trained oncologists, and the specialists we consult, are essential to the treatment decision process. Ideas or suggestions by lay persons may be considered of course ...however, at best, these should be considered merely starting points for discussions with your doctors.

From:

https://www.lymphomation.org/CAM-layadvice.htm

Seems like you're doing exactly this...
Title: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: CarbShark on August 30, 2019, 09:48:28 AM

Quote
... Ideas or suggestions by lay persons may be considered of course ...however, at best, these should be considered merely starting points for discussions with your doctors.

From:

https://www.lymphomation.org/CAM-layadvice.htm

Seems like you're doing exactly this...

Yes. I am doing exactly that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: Harry Black on August 30, 2019, 12:15:12 PM

Quote
... Ideas or suggestions by lay persons may be considered of course ...however, at best, these should be considered merely starting points for discussions with your doctors.

From:

https://www.lymphomation.org/CAM-layadvice.htm

Seems like you're doing exactly this...

Yes. I am doing exactly that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thats advice for the recipients of unsolicited medical advice. Not the donors.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: CarbShark on August 30, 2019, 01:29:42 PM

Quote
... Ideas or suggestions by lay persons may be considered of course ...however, at best, these should be considered merely starting points for discussions with your doctors.

From:

https://www.lymphomation.org/CAM-layadvice.htm

Seems like you're doing exactly this...

Yes. I am doing exactly that.
Thats advice for the recipients of unsolicited medical advice. Not the donors.

That's not what it says, and that's not what it means.

If you read the page linked to you'd find this:

Quote
The patient selects the strategies, which are reported to be based on scientific studies.

That's not what I'm doing. I'm not selecting any strategy. I am providing links to scientific studies.

Quote
The outcome of the patient is reported as being better than average

I am not reporting any outcomes

Quote
The layperson concludes the strategies are proven effective for the patient.
The layperson concludes the strategies are likely to be effective for others.

I am drawing no conclusions or making any claims about effectiveness. The most I'm saying is nearly all of the studies conclude it is promising, but that more study is needed.

Quote
The layperson concludes that there is no harm when the treatment or life style strategy is safe.

That would not be my claim when speaking to these individuals.


LCHF would be considered complementary:

Quote
Complementary Medicine:

Changing your life style in reaction to a diagnosis of lymphoma is most likely considered complementary practices. Clearly it's both sensible and beneficial to eat healthy foods, to exercise routinely (within your limits),  get adequate sleep, and so on. Good performance status is correlated with improved survival in lymphomas. However, at this time there is no evidence that exercise, diet, or herbs can directly affect the course of the disease.
Emphasis added

I'm not sure if LCHF diet has been studied with lymphoma in the 15 years since that page was written.  One of the criteria I used for getting those links from pubMed was after 2017.

Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: superdave on August 30, 2019, 03:16:03 PM
I think it's plausible that the long term consequences of one diet or another could affect likelihood of developing cancers, especially along the digestive tract, but I highly highly doubt any diet has acute consequences. 
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: Belgarath on August 30, 2019, 03:24:41 PM

Quote
... Ideas or suggestions by lay persons may be considered of course ...however, at best, these should be considered merely starting points for discussions with your doctors.

From:

https://www.lymphomation.org/CAM-layadvice.htm

Seems like you're doing exactly this...

Yes. I am doing exactly that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

NICE cherry pick.  You're really good at that.

Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: bachfiend on August 30, 2019, 04:56:01 PM
This is a topic that's important enough to me that I think it merits its own thread.

Based on the idea that cancer cells rely primarily and in some cases exclusively on glucose for energy (the Warburg effect) the idea of using carbohydrate restriction to fight cancer along with traditional methods (chemo; radiation; surgery) has gotten a lot of traction lately and shown significant promise.

But, there have not been enough studies to clearly show its effectiveness (or lack thereof) but there is very little or no evidence that it causes harm.

I have two close friends who have cancer now, one of them has known me since before I was a LCHF dieter, back when I was obese.

So I'm going to share this with him. He's fairly skeptical, and may dismiss it out of hand, but I would feel terrible if I did nothing, and then better studies start showing a beneficial effect while his cancer progresses. (He's doing chemo and after some progress his tumors have started growing again).
 
So here's what I found in a couple hours on pub med. I've read all the abstracts and will read the full text of as many as I can in the days to come.



EDIT: No new links here, just a quotes from a few of the articles.



ketogenic diet and cancer - PubMed - NCBI (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed)

Front Cell Dev Biol. 2019; 7: 80.
Published online 2019 May 15. doi: 10.3389/fcell.2019.00080
PMCID: PMC6530249
PMID: 31157222
Editorial: The Warburg Effect Regulation Under Siege: the Intertwined Pathways in Health and Disease
Concetta Bubici1,* and Salvatore Papa2,*

Quote
As the implications of the Warburg effect in health and disease continue to emerge, we are entering into a renaissance period for metabolism research. Since the Warburg's original observation, we have learnt a lot about the effect of signal transduction on metabolic pathways and how cells rapidly reprogram their metabolism although much remains to be discovered.


Editorial: The Warburg Effect Regulation Under Siege: the Intertwined Pathways in Health and Disease (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6530249/)



Rationale, Feasibility and Acceptability of Ketogenic Diet for Cancer Treatment (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5624453/)


 J Cancer Prev. 2017 Sep; 22(3): 127–134.
Published online 2017 Sep 30. doi: 10.15430/JCP.2017.22.3.127
PMCID: PMC5624453
PMID: 29018777
Rationale, Feasibility and Acceptability of Ketogenic Diet for Cancer Treatment
Hae-Yun Chung1 and Yoo Kyoung Park2

Quote
From this review, we found further evidence that ketogenic diet in cancer patients is safe and feasible as an adjuvant therapy. As described above, we could conclude that in order to see any significant progression or improvement by ketogenic diet, at least 3 to 4 weeks of ketogenic diet is required. Additionally, we suggest that not only body composition but also biomarker or measures for tumor size or tumor metabolism assessment is essential. We also conclude that the acceptability for ketone diet may be better in some cancer type (better in glioblastoma than gastric cancer).



Ketogenic Diet and Other Dietary Intervention Strategies in the Treatment of Cancer. - PubMed - NCBI (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28093985)

Ketogenic Diet and Other Dietary Intervention Strategies in the Treatment of Cancer
Author(s): Matteo Vergati, Eriseld Krasniqi, Girolamo D. Monte, Silvia Riondino, Doriana Vallone, Fiorella Guadagni, Patrizia Ferroni*, Mario Roselli.
Journal Name: Current Medicinal Chemistry
Volume 24 , Issue 12 , 2017

DOI : 10.2174/0929867324666170116122915

Quote
The rationale of KD is valid both because it lowers carbohydrate uptake possibly leading to cancer cell starvation and apoptosis and, at the same time, increases the levels of ketone bodies available for energy production in normal cells but not in cancer cells which have an allegedly downregulated oxidative phosphorylation.


Ketogenic diet in the treatment of cancer – Where do we stand? - ScienceDirect (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212877819304272?via%3Dihub)
Molecular Metabolism
Review
Ketogenic diet in the treatment of cancer – Where do we stand?

Author links open overlay panelDaniela D.WeberSepidehAminzadeh-GohariJuliaTulipanLucaCatalanoRené G.FeichtingerBarbaraKofler

Quote
The ketogenic diet probably creates an unfavorable metabolic environment for cancer cells and thus can be regarded as a promising adjuvant as a patient-specific multifactorial therapy. The majority of preclinical and several clinical studies argue for the use of the ketogenic diet in combination with standard therapies based on its potential to enhance the antitumor effects of classic chemo- and radiotherapy, its overall good safety and tolerability and increase in quality of life. However, to further elucidate the mechanisms of the ketogenic diet as a therapy and evaluate its application in clinical practice, more molecular studies as well as uniformly controlled clinical trials are needed.


A Ketogenic Diet Is Acceptable in Women with Ovarian and Endometrial Cancer and Has No Adverse Effects on Blood Lipids: a Randomized, Controlled Tr... - PubMed - NCBI (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31352797)
A Ketogenic Diet Is Acceptable in Women with Ovarian and Endometrial Cancer and Has No Adverse Effects on Blood Lipids: a Randomized, Controlled Trial.

Cohen CW1, Fontaine KR2, Arend RC3,4, Gower BA1.

Quote
Abstract
Ketogenic diets (KDs) are emerging as effective therapies for several chronic diseases, including cancer. However, concerns regarding safety and adherence may prevent clinicians from prescribing KDs. We hypothesized that a KD does not negatively affect blood lipid profile compared to a lower-fat diet in ovarian and endometrial cancer patients, and that KD subjects would demonstrate acceptable adherence. Subjects were randomized to either a KD (70% fat, 25% protein, 5% carbohydrate), or the American Cancer Society diet (ACS; high-fiber and lower-fat). Blood lipids and ketones were measured at baseline and after 12 weeks of the assigned intervention. Adherence measures included urinary ketones in the KD and 4 days' diet records. Diet records were also examined to identify general patterns of consumption. Differences between the diets on blood lipids and dietary intake were assessed with Analysis of covariance and independent t-tests. Correlation analyses were used to estimate associations between dietary intake and serum analytes. At 12 weeks, there were no significant differences between diet groups in blood lipids, after adjusting for baseline values and weight loss. Adherence among KD subjects ranged from 57% to 80%. These findings suggest that KDs may be a safe and achievable component of treatment for some cancer patients.



Wilhelm Brünings' forgotten contribution to the metabolic treatment of cancer utilizing hypoglycemia and a very low carbohydrate (ketogenic) diet (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6544614/)

Quote
First clinical pilot studies on the KD and cancer have been conducted,7,10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and several others are planned or currently running.15, 16, 17 These studies are based on mainly three rationales.18 First, KDs have been shown to be capable of slowing down tumor growth in many, although not all, animal models.18,19 Second, the replacement of carbohydrates with fat that is characteristic for a KD is supposed to account for the increased fat oxidation rates in cancer patients that are due to tumor-induced insulin resistance, in this way possibly protecting against skeletal muscle loss.20, 21, 22 Third, KDs are expected to sensitize tumor cells to radio- and chemotherapy, principally opening up a very broad range of applications as complementary cancer treatments. This at least partly relates to their ability to impair tumor cell glycolysis, reducing ATP levels and the ability to utilize substrates of glycolytic metabolism for protection against reactive oxygen species.23, 24, 25


The emerging role of ketogenic diets in cancer treatment. - PubMed - NCBI (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30531479)

Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2019 Mar;22(2):129-134. doi: 10.1097/MCO.0000000000000540.
The emerging role of ketogenic diets in cancer treatment.
Klement RJ1.
Author information
Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Leopoldina Hospital Schweinfurt, Schweinfurt, Germany.
Quote
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW:
Altered glucose metabolism in cancer cells is an almost ubiquitous observation, yet hardly exploited therapeutically. However, ketogenic diets have gained growing attention in recent years as a nontoxic broad-spectrum approach to target this major metabolic difference between normal and cancer cells. Although much research still needs to be done, new knowledge has been gained about the optimal utilization of ketogenic diets for cancer treatment that this review aims to summarize.
RECENT FINDINGS:
Although most preclinical studies indicate a therapeutic potential for ketogenic diets in cancer treatment, it is now becoming clear that not all tumors might respond positively. Early clinical trials have investigated ketogenic diets as a monotherapy and - while showing the safety of the approach even in advanced cancer patients - largely failed to prove survival prolonging effects. However, it gradually became clear that the greatest potential for ketogenic diets is as adjuvant treatments combined with pro-oxidative or targeted therapies initiated in early stages of the disease. Beneficial effects on body composition and quality of life have also been found.
SUMMARY:
Ketogenic diets against cancer are worth further exploration, both in the laboratory and clinically. Patients wishing to undertake a ketogenic diet during therapy should receive dietary counselling to avoid common mistakes and optimize compliance. Future research should focus more on important clinical endpoints.


Pros and Cons of Dietary Strategies Popular Among Cancer Patients | Cancer Network (https://www.cancernetwork.com/dietary-strategies-cancer)
Quote
More recently, however, preclinical research suggests that the potential mechanism of ketosis on cancer cells does not rely solely on the Warburg effect. The spectrum of altered growth, metabolism, and signaling metabolites incurred by ketosis may result in a cancer cell–specific induction of oxidative stress, thereby potentiating the effect of chemotherapy and radiation.[34,35] Additionally, ketogenic diets may have a protein-sparing effect that preserves lean body mass in the setting of cancer cachexia.[36] In animal models, ketogenic diets decrease the initiation, progression, and metastasis of cancer.[37]

Evidence in human clinical trials is limited to cases and small open-label studies, typically as salvage therapies, which confirm the feasibility and safety of ketogenic diets. These studies suggest that ketogenic diets are safe, and do not negatively impact quality of life. They are, however, difficult to adhere to, and many patients do not reach desired levels of ketones in the urine.[35,38-41] The bottom line is that ketogenic diets may have utility in certain individuals, especially in combination with other conventional therapies, but there is currently no reliable way to predict which patients might respond. They are exceedingly difficult to implement without professional dietary counseling. Moreover, poorly implemented ketogenic diets incur risk for micronutrient deficiency; are very high in saturated fat; are typically low in fiber; may include processed foods; and may exclude entire food groups, such as fruits, legumes, and many vegetables, which have been shown to be beneficial for cancer prevention and mortality (See Figure).

Dietary fat: From foe to friend? | Science (https://science.sciencemag.org/content/362/6416/764.long)


Nutritional Targeting of Cancer Cell Metabolism in Obesity (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6075178/)


Investigating the Ketogenic Diet As Treatment for Primary Aggressive Brain Cancer: Challenges and Lessons Learned (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5834833/)
Quote
There are both in vitro and in vivo animal studies to suggest that KD has the potential to augment the treatments currently available for patients with aggressive gliomas. The value of KD to treat humans with these malignancies has yet to be proven in clinical trials. There is currently a lack of standard KD protocols so that comparison of different trials is difficult. Rigorous diet management and objective measures of ketosis are required to fairly evaluate the effectiveness of the KD as therapy for aggressive gliomas.

Ketogenic diet in cancer therapy (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5842847/)
Quote
In conclusion, clinical application of KDs as an adjuvant therapy for cancer patients first requires that the KD be evaluated for its anti-tumor effect for each single type/genetic subtype of cancer in a preclinical setting, as the safety and efficacy of the KD strongly depend on the tumor entity and its genotype. Based on the results of rigorous preclinical and clinical studies performed thus far, the KD would appear to be a promising and powerful option for adjuvant therapy for a range of cancers. Cancer-specific recommendations await the findings of randomized controlled clinical trials.


Efficacy of Metabolically Supported Chemotherapy Combined with Ketogenic Diet, Hyperthermia, and Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy for Stage IV Triple-Nega... - PubMed - NCBI (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28924531)


Efficacy of Metabolically Supported Chemotherapy Combined with Ketogenic Diet, Hyperthermia, and Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy for Stage IV Triple-Negative Breast Cancer (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5589510/)


Alternative Ketogenic Diet with Coconut Milk in a Case with Underlying Colorectal Cancer. - PubMed - NCBI (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28900345)


Article on ketogenic dietary regimes for cancer highly misleading. - PubMed - NCBI (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28455833)


Consuming a Ketogenic Diet while Receiving Radiation and Chemotherapy for Locally Advanced Lung and Pancreatic Cancer: The University of Iowa Experience of Two Phase I Clinical Trials (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5510645/)


A Nutritional Perspective of Ketogenic Diet in Cancer: A Narrative Review. - PubMed - NCBI (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28366810)


Ketogenic Diets and Cancer: Emerging Evidence (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6375425/)

Quote
Data from case reports and trials suggest KD use is safe and tolerable for patients with cancer. Although it would be ideal to conduct a larger trial using a randomized therapeutic approach, the current emphasis on drug-based trials is a formidable obstacle. Other major obstacles are patient initiative and adherence. For now, investigators must work with anecdotal data. Examination of gene expression patterns in mitochondria and mutations in ketolytic and glycolytic enzymes may prove useful in selecting potentially responsive patients. Combining this dietary approach with standard chemotherapeutic and radiotherapeutic options may help improve tumor response, and further research is desperately needed.

So where are you stating that you’d provide this information to your close friends with cancer, and advise them to discuss it with their oncologists to determine whether your LCHF ketogenic diet is appropriate as adjunct complementary therapy, as you’re now claiming?

You’re not doing research.  Nor are you doing a literature search.  In a literature search, you hunt out all the relevant papers, and summarise their findings in one or two lines in your own words, not with a ‘cut and paste.’  Something along the lines of ‘the study showed with a LCHF ketogenic diet, mean survival in stage 4 squamous cell carcinoma of the lung increased from 5 to 13 months.’  Something to indicate that you understood the paper.  And that the paper contains relevant information, rather than generalised conjecture, as your block dumped papers indicate.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: CarbShark on August 30, 2019, 05:25:15 PM

So where are you stating that you’d provide this information to your close friends with cancer, and advise them to discuss it with their oncologists to determine whether your LCHF ketogenic diet is appropriate as adjunct complementary therapy, as you’re now claiming?
 

That would be here:


...
Sharing information is not giving advice.

Were I to have this conversation with either of my friends battling cancer it would be along the lines of:

"One promising area for treating cancer is using a strict keto diet to lower blood sugar, and give cancer cells less fuel. Using Keto together with the regular treatments (radiation; chemo; surgery; etc.) is being studied right now and the results so far are promising but nothing conclusive. Here's all the information I have on it (including some information about your specific cancer), maybe it's something to talk to your doctor about."
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: bachfiend on August 30, 2019, 06:04:41 PM

So where are you stating that you’d provide this information to your close friends with cancer, and advise them to discuss it with their oncologists to determine whether your LCHF ketogenic diet is appropriate as adjunct complementary therapy, as you’re now claiming?
 

That would be here:


...
Sharing information is not giving advice.

Were I to have this conversation with either of my friends battling cancer it would be along the lines of:

"One promising area for treating cancer is using a strict keto diet to lower blood sugar, and give cancer cells less fuel. Using Keto together with the regular treatments (radiation; chemo; surgery; etc.) is being studied right now and the results so far are promising but nothing conclusive. Here's all the information I have on it (including some information about your specific cancer), maybe it's something to talk to your doctor about."

You originally wrote ‘So I’m going to share this (information) with him.’  Nothing conditional.  Now you’ve retreated to ‘were I to have this conversation with either of my friends battling cancer it would be along the lines of...’

You claim that you have ‘some information about your specific cancer.’  So which is it?  I hesitate to do it, but please link to the information you have, so we can see if your ideologically biased diet actually has been shown to have efficacy in the specific cancers concerned.  And summarise the information so we can see if you understand what you’re reading.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: CarbShark on August 30, 2019, 06:27:01 PM

So where are you stating that you’d provide this information to your close friends with cancer, and advise them to discuss it with their oncologists to determine whether your LCHF ketogenic diet is appropriate as adjunct complementary therapy, as you’re now claiming?
 

That would be here:


...
Sharing information is not giving advice.

Were I to have this conversation with either of my friends battling cancer it would be along the lines of:

"One promising area for treating cancer is using a strict keto diet to lower blood sugar, and give cancer cells less fuel. Using Keto together with the regular treatments (radiation; chemo; surgery; etc.) is being studied right now and the results so far are promising but nothing conclusive. Here's all the information I have on it (including some information about your specific cancer), maybe it's something to talk to your doctor about."

You originally wrote ‘So I’m going to share this (information) with him.’  Nothing conditional.  Now you’ve retreated to ‘were I to have this conversation with either of my friends battling cancer it would be along the lines of...’

You claim that you have ‘some information about your specific cancer.’  So which is it?  I hesitate to do it, but please link to the information you have, so we can see if your ideologically biased diet actually has been shown to have efficacy in the specific cancers concerned.  And summarise the information so we can see if you understand what you’re reading.


That's not a retreat. I initially said I would discuss it, later I described what I would say.

I would rather the conversation stayed on cancer and the potential for diet to help standard treatments than do your research for you so you make some claim about reading comprehension (especially you).

Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: bachfiend on August 30, 2019, 06:54:31 PM

So where are you stating that you’d provide this information to your close friends with cancer, and advise them to discuss it with their oncologists to determine whether your LCHF ketogenic diet is appropriate as adjunct complementary therapy, as you’re now claiming?
 

That would be here:
If

...
Sharing information is not giving advice.

Were I to have this conversation with either of my friends battling cancer it would be along the lines of:

"One promising area for treating cancer is using a strict keto diet to lower blood sugar, and give cancer cells less fuel. Using Keto together with the regular treatments (radiation; chemo; surgery; etc.) is being studied right now and the results so far are promising but nothing conclusive. Here's all the information I have on it (including some information about your specific cancer), maybe it's something to talk to your doctor about."

You originally wrote ‘So I’m going to share this (information) with him.’  Nothing conditional.  Now you’ve retreated to ‘were I to have this conversation with either of my friends battling cancer it would be along the lines of...’

You claim that you have ‘some information about your specific cancer.’  So which is it?  I hesitate to do it, but please link to the information you have, so we can see if your ideologically biased diet actually has been shown to have efficacy in the specific cancers concerned.  And summarise the information so we can see if you understand what you’re reading.


That's not a retreat. I initially said I would discuss it, later I described what I would say.

I would rather the conversation stayed on cancer and the potential for diet to help standard treatments than do your research for you so you make some claim about reading comprehension (especially you).

No, you didn’t initially say that you would ‘discuss it.’  You said you’d ‘share it.’ 

You claim to have information about the cancers your friends have.  What is it?  Provide the information about your friends’ specific cancers, and I’ll do the ‘research’ (well, actually I’ll do some searching on the Internet, not research).

And anyway.  ‘Cancer’ isn’t a single disease.  It’s many diseases.  What works on one cancer, doesn’t work with others.

You’re the one with problems regarding reading comprehension.  You still insist you’re doing ‘research,’ despite no one else here buying it.
Title: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: CarbShark on August 30, 2019, 06:57:13 PM
This kind of irrational and unproductive quibbling is why I don’t entertain trolls


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: bachfiend on August 30, 2019, 07:24:26 PM
This kind of irrational and unproductive quibbling is why I don’t entertain trolls


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Asking for evidence, asking for information, supporting your wild assertions isn’t ‘trolling.’

You don’t ‘entertain’ trolls.  But you certainly entertain us with your pseudoscience.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: daniel1948 on August 30, 2019, 08:06:54 PM
The Warburg effect is an observation that might lead to useful research on cancer. But cancers are so diverse, with so many different causes and courses and prognoses, and the chasm between "Warburg effect" and recommending a ketogenic diet as a therapy is so vast, that such a recommendation is beyond pseudoscience, since pseudoscience by definition has some appearance of science. For one thing, the vast majority of connections that sound promising, turn out to be dead ends. (In this case, going from Warburg effect to a ketogenic diet for cancer.) For another, to recommend any one single treatment for "cancer" justly deserves the name of crackpot. Cancer is not a single disease. It is a category of diverse conditions that have two things in common: rapid cell division and metastasis. It is a typical uneducated layman's mistake to view "cancer" as a single condition that might have a single cure, or even a treatment modality effective for all cancers. In fact, any treatment that works for one cancer might exacerbate another.

Another typical layman's mistake is to lump treatments that have been rejected as useless by the medical community into the category of "alternative" and to imagine that if one person with a medical degree promotes such a treatment, that the medical community must have some nefarious reason for rejecting it. We have a strong empathy for the underdog. We love it when a longshot wins. But we forget that that happens one time out of a thousand, and that the outlier turns out to be right less often than that. We remember Fulton, but who's heard of Bidini?

A person with cancer (or any other illness or condition) who turns to "alternative" therapy might survive in one case out of ten thousand. But he'll die in 9,999 cases out of ten thousand. And this is the harm you do when you recommend alternative modalities to sick friends. If they listen to you, you greatly increase the chances that they will die.

CarbShark: If you recommend a LCHF diet to your friend, there's one chance in a thousand you'll save his life, and there are 999 chances out of a thousand that you'll make him worse. Unless, of course, he's smart enough to reject your recommendation as the nonsense that it is.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: Harry Black on August 31, 2019, 05:59:40 AM
I have no idea if it would make their cancer worse.
It would almost certainly add to the mental burden people in that position have to carry.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: bachfiend on August 31, 2019, 11:14:37 AM
I have no idea if it would make their cancer worse.
It would almost certainly add to the mental burden people in that position have to carry.

I linked to an article written by a dietician at the MD Anderson Cancer Center discussing the low carbohydrate/high fat fad.  She noted that there are some cancers that are made worse by high fat diets.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: Harry Black on August 31, 2019, 03:24:28 PM
I have no idea if it would make their cancer worse.
It would almost certainly add to the mental burden people in that position have to carry.

I linked to an article written by a dietician at the MD Anderson Cancer Center discussing the low carbohydrate/high fat fad.  She noted that there are some cancers that are made worse by high fat diets.
I just wanted to be clear that I havent read that, I wouldnt understand it and even if it were wrong, I feel that my point would remain valid.
The appropriateness of giving such advice does not hinge on whether or not it is factually correct.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: bachfiend on August 31, 2019, 04:53:50 PM
I have no idea if it would make their cancer worse.
It would almost certainly add to the mental burden people in that position have to carry.

I linked to an article written by a dietician at the MD Anderson Cancer Center discussing the low carbohydrate/high fat fad.  She noted that there are some cancers that are made worse by high fat diets.
I just wanted to be clear that I havent read that, I wouldnt understand it and even if it were wrong, I feel that my point would remain valid.
The appropriateness of giving such advice does not hinge on whether or not it is factually correct.

I’m not certain whether adopting a fad diet such as a low carbohydrate/high fat ketogenic diet would add to a cancer sufferer’s mental burden (it might be of slight benefit in giving the cancer sufferers the illusion that they’re doing something of their own volition instead of nothing), but it would certainly add to their physical burden, while probably doing nothing to the cancer, and possibly be of slight benefit and also possibly cause the cancer to thrive more.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: Harry Black on August 31, 2019, 05:04:01 PM
I have no idea if it would make their cancer worse.
It would almost certainly add to the mental burden people in that position have to carry.

I linked to an article written by a dietician at the MD Anderson Cancer Center discussing the low carbohydrate/high fat fad.  She noted that there are some cancers that are made worse by high fat diets.
I just wanted to be clear that I havent read that, I wouldnt understand it and even if it were wrong, I feel that my point would remain valid.
The appropriateness of giving such advice does not hinge on whether or not it is factually correct.

I’m not certain whether adopting a fad diet such as a low carbohydrate/high fat ketogenic diet would add to a cancer sufferer’s mental burden (it might be of slight benefit in giving the cancer sufferers the illusion that they’re doing something of their own volition instead of nothing), but it would certainly add to their physical burden, while probably doing nothing to the cancer, and possibly be of slight benefit and also possibly cause the cancer to thrive more.
Its the mental burden of every man and his dog having a suggestion as to how they should deal with or approach their situation..
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: bachfiend on August 31, 2019, 05:52:14 PM
I have no idea if it would make their cancer worse.
It would almost certainly add to the mental burden people in that position have to carry.

I linked to an article written by a dietician at the MD Anderson Cancer Center discussing the low carbohydrate/high fat fad.  She noted that there are some cancers that are made worse by high fat diets.
I just wanted to be clear that I havent read that, I wouldnt understand it and even if it were wrong, I feel that my point would remain valid.
The appropriateness of giving such advice does not hinge on whether or not it is factually correct.

I’m not certain whether adopting a fad diet such as a low carbohydrate/high fat ketogenic diet would add to a cancer sufferer’s mental burden (it might be of slight benefit in giving the cancer sufferers the illusion that they’re doing something of their own volition instead of nothing), but it would certainly add to their physical burden, while probably doing nothing to the cancer, and possibly be of slight benefit and also possibly cause the cancer to thrive more.
Its the mental burden of every man and his dog having a suggestion as to how they should deal with or approach their situation..

Oh, I agree with you that it’s highly inappropriate for CarbShark to be giving advice on medical matters, with his almost complete ignorance of medical science, and his complete ignorance of whether his diet has any benefit whatsoever with specific cancers, and his advice being skewed towards his quasi-religious attachment to his diet, however quantifying mental burden is an almost impossible task.

I still think it might be of slight mental benefit in doing something, such as changing diet, rather than nothing.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: daniel1948 on August 31, 2019, 08:08:24 PM
I have no idea if it would make their cancer worse.
It would almost certainly add to the mental burden people in that position have to carry.

I linked to an article written by a dietician at the MD Anderson Cancer Center discussing the low carbohydrate/high fat fad.  She noted that there are some cancers that are made worse by high fat diets.
I just wanted to be clear that I havent read that, I wouldnt understand it and even if it were wrong, I feel that my point would remain valid.
The appropriateness of giving such advice does not hinge on whether or not it is factually correct.

I’m not certain whether adopting a fad diet such as a low carbohydrate/high fat ketogenic diet would add to a cancer sufferer’s mental burden (it might be of slight benefit in giving the cancer sufferers the illusion that they’re doing something of their own volition instead of nothing), but it would certainly add to their physical burden, while probably doing nothing to the cancer, and possibly be of slight benefit and also possibly cause the cancer to thrive more.
Its the mental burden of every man and his dog having a suggestion as to how they should deal with or approach their situation..

The above is a very good point: Someone with cancer is likely to be pestered by every friend, relative, and acquaintance with a crackpot "cure," all of them telling the sick person, "Well, then, if you won't take my advice it's your own fault if you die." I'm sure CarbShark won't say such a thing overtly, but the implication is there.

There is no one-size-fits-all cancer treatment. Every kind of cancer is different and every individual is different, and it is just preposterous to go around saying that any one diet is appropriate for cancers across the board, or that one particular diet "can't hurt you."

It is irresponsible in the extreme to go about peddling advice for cancer patients. Better to ask your friend "What can I do to help you?" or tell them "I'm here if you need anything." Or donate to institutions that are actually doing research.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: bachfiend on August 31, 2019, 08:20:38 PM
I have no idea if it would make their cancer worse.
It would almost certainly add to the mental burden people in that position have to carry.

I linked to an article written by a dietician at the MD Anderson Cancer Center discussing the low carbohydrate/high fat fad.  She noted that there are some cancers that are made worse by high fat diets.
I just wanted to be clear that I havent read that, I wouldnt understand it and even if it were wrong, I feel that my point would remain valid.
The appropriateness of giving such advice does not hinge on whether or not it is factually correct.

I’m not certain whether adopting a fad diet such as a low carbohydrate/high fat ketogenic diet would add to a cancer sufferer’s mental burden (it might be of slight benefit in giving the cancer sufferers the illusion that they’re doing something of their own volition instead of nothing), but it would certainly add to their physical burden, while probably doing nothing to the cancer, and possibly be of slight benefit and also possibly cause the cancer to thrive more.
Its the mental burden of every man and his dog having a suggestion as to how they should deal with or approach their situation..

The above is a very good point: Someone with cancer is likely to be pestered by every friend, relative, and acquaintance with a crackpot "cure," all of them telling the sick person, "Well, then, if you won't take my advice it's your own fault if you die." I'm sure CarbShark won't say such a thing overtly, but the implication is there.

There is no one-size-fits-all cancer treatment. Every kind of cancer is different and every individual is different, and it is just preposterous to go around saying that any one diet is appropriate for cancers across the board, or that one particular diet "can't hurt you."

It is irresponsible in the extreme to go about peddling advice for cancer patients. Better to ask your friend "What can I do to help you?" or tell them "I'm here if you need anything." Or donate to institutions that are actually doing research.

Well, of course you’re right.  If I had cancer, I’d find it just as objectionable if someone such as CarbShark proselytised for his diet to me, as much as I’d object to someone proselytising for their religion as providing comfort.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: CarbShark on August 31, 2019, 11:37:31 PM

Its the mental burden of every man and his dog having a suggestion as to how they should deal with or approach their situation..

This

That’s one reason I haven’t even been tempted to share this information.

Another is the one guy is a good friend and I’d fear doing this could damage our friendship.

The other friend is being bombarded by all sorts of woo, including people telling her to avoid chemo. I’d be more inclined to share this with her because at least it doesn’t interfere with her treatment.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: bachfiend on September 01, 2019, 01:18:05 AM

Its the mental burden of every man and his dog having a suggestion as to how they should deal with or approach their situation..

This

That’s one reason I haven’t even been tempted to share this information.

Another is the one guy is a good friend and I’d fear doing this could damage our friendship.

The other friend is being bombarded by all sorts of woo, including people telling her to avoid chemo. I’d be more inclined to share this with her because at least it doesn’t interfere with her treatment.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So, you’ve gone from stating that you’re going to share this ‘information’ to stating that you’re not tempted to share this information’ in just a few days.

At least we’re making some progress.

How do you know that your diet won’t interfere with your friend’s chemotherapy?  Have you had chemotherapy?  Do you have any sort of medical experience to know what particular form of chemotherapy she’s having?
Title: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: CarbShark on September 01, 2019, 01:10:59 PM

Its the mental burden of every man and his dog having a suggestion as to how they should deal with or approach their situation..

This

That’s one reason I haven’t even been tempted to share this information.

Another is the one guy is a good friend and I’d fear doing this could damage our friendship.

The other friend is being bombarded by all sorts of woo, including people telling her to avoid chemo. I’d be more inclined to share this with her because at least it doesn’t interfere with her treatment.

So, you’ve gone from stating that you’re going to share this ‘information’ to stating that you’re not tempted to share this information’ in just a few days.

At least we’re making some progress.

You understand the concept of past tense, don’t you?

In the past I haven’t been tempted to bring it up.

Recently my friend had a setback. After his tumors had been shrinking, they grew a little.

That’s what lead me to the session on pub med to see if there were any new developments and now the question is: Should I share this information.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: CarbShark on September 01, 2019, 01:14:54 PM
I have no idea if it would make their cancer worse.
It would almost certainly add to the mental burden people in that position have to carry.

I linked to an article written by a dietician at the MD Anderson Cancer Center discussing the low carbohydrate/high fat fad.  She noted that there are some cancers that are made worse by high fat diets.
I’d rather read your anecdotal accounts than anything written on the subject by a dietician.

They are not scientists.

That’s why they can see a weak correlation of a high fat/high carb diet with cancer and claim the high fat diet is the cause.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: bachfiend on September 01, 2019, 04:26:04 PM
CarbShark,

You’re getting dangerously close to being a snake oil crank.  You’re all over the place, going initially from you’re going to share this ‘information’ to you’re not tempted to share this ‘information,’ to asking whether you should give this ‘information,’ and back again.

A dietician at the MD Anderson Cancer Center is going to know much more about cancer and nutrition than you will ever know.  She didn’t state that ‘a weak correlation of a high carbohydrate/high fat diet (sic) with cancer and claim(s) the high fat diet is the cause.’  She stated that there are some types of cancer that are made worse by high fat diets.

You’re a snake oil salesman.  Your low carbohydrate/high fat ketogenic diet cures everything.  Weight loss in the obese without counting calories or feeling hungry.  Cures type 2 diabetes and irritable bowel syndrome.  And many other conditions.  Prevents heart disease.  Helps cure all forms of cancer in all stages.
Title: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: CarbShark on September 01, 2019, 06:39:44 PM
.  Your low carbohydrate/high fat ketogenic diet cures everything. 

Nobody is saying that.  It helps a lot of things get better, but not everything.

But it’s not a panacea or a cure-all of any kind. It’s the Opposite situation. A diet high in carbs, especially refined fast and simple carbs, causes or  exacerbates numerous medical issues. Any diet that removes those helps. 

Quote
Weight loss in the obese without counting calories or feeling hungry. 

Check

Quote
Cures type 2 diabetes and irritable bowel syndrome. 

Check and check.

Quote
And many other conditions. 

Yes, others. Not sure how many.

Quote
Prevents heart disease. 

Yes, in that it lowers major risk factors for heart disease.

Every single one of those claims is supported by numerous studies in peer review literature.

Quote
Helps cure all forms of cancer in all stages.

Nobody is saying that. What is being said and studied and is showing promise, is that it has the potential to help prevent many kinds of cancers and slow the growth of many types of cancers without interfering with chemo and other treatments.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: bachfiend on September 01, 2019, 06:52:50 PM
.  Your low carbohydrate/high fat ketogenic diet cures everything. 

Nobody is saying that.  It helps a lot of things get better, but not everything.

But it’s not a panacea or a cure-all of any kind. It’s the Opposite situation. A diet high in carbs, especially refined fast and simple carbs, causes or  exacerbates numerous medical issues. Any diet that removes those helps. 

Quote
Weight loss in the obese without counting calories or feeling hungry. 

Check

Quote
Cures type 2 diabetes and irritable bowel syndrome. 

Check and check.

Quote
And many other conditions. 

Yes, others. Not sure how many.

Quote
Prevents heart disease. 

Yes, in that it lowers major risk factors for heart disease.

Every single one of those claims is supported by numerous studies in peer review literature.

Quote
Helps cure all forms of cancer in all stages.

Nobody is saying that. What is being said and studied and is showing promise, is that it has the potential to help prevent many kinds of cancers and slow the growth of many types of cancers without interfering with chemo and other treatments.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You’re a snake oil salesman.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake_oil

Everything you’ve just written confirms it.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: daniel1948 on September 01, 2019, 07:28:05 PM
... A diet high in carbs, especially refined fast and simple carbs, causes or  exacerbates numerous medical issues. Any diet that removes those helps. 

Here you've made an error in logic that, in any other arena except LCHF diet, you'd have recognized and correctly denounced: You state that a diet high in carbs, especially refined fast and simple carbs, is bad for you, and from that you leap to adopting and advocating a diet that completely or nearly eliminates all carbs, including the healthy complex ones. You are adopting the illogic that says "If too much of X is bad for you, then eliminating X entirely must be good for you.

There are many nutrients that are absolutely essential for health, or even for life, but which make you sick or even kill you in excess. Carbs in excess are unhealthy. Complex carbs in moderation are an excellent source of energy and often come with important other nutrients. Other examples include sodium and vitamin A. Necessary for life; very bad in excess. You're smart enough to see this, but for some reason you have a blind spot with regard to carbs. And you've gone off the deep end when you pass from eliminating carbs for weight loss, to advocating the elimination of carbs to cure a wide variety of unrelated illnesses. One of the most reliable indicators of a quack is when they claim their treatment cures a variety of unrelated illnesses or conditions.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: CarbShark on September 01, 2019, 08:35:52 PM
... A diet high in carbs, especially refined fast and simple carbs, causes or  exacerbates numerous medical issues. Any diet that removes those helps. 

Here you've made an error in logic that, in any other arena except LCHF diet, you'd have recognized and correctly denounced: You state that a diet high in carbs, especially refined fast and simple carbs, is bad for you, and from that you leap to adopting and advocating a diet that completely or nearly eliminates all carbs, including the healthy complex ones.

No and no. There is no error in logic. The results are moving to a LCHF diet is better for you. The results are also that moving to a high carb diet is bad for you.

Plus, LCHF does not eliminate complex carbs. Dieters are encouraged to eat plenty of leafy green veggies. I know 20g doesn’t seem
Like a lot but when you see the portion sizes for 20g of carbs of broccoli, spinach, asparagus, etc. it’s quite a lot. Personally I eat more veggies than before and actually enjoy them.

Quote
You are adopting the illogic that says "If too much of X is bad for you, then eliminating X entirely must be good for you.

Nope. See above.
Quote
There are many nutrients that are absolutely essential for health, or even for life, but which make you sick or even kill you in excess. Carbs in excess are unhealthy. Complex carbs in moderation are an excellent source of energy and often come with important other nutrients.

That’s why 20g per day is encouraged.

Another source of really good nutrients: meat.

Also, in nutrition, essential has a very specific meaning and you’re misusing it here. There are essential proteins and fats that the body needs to survive and cannot make itself. Micronutrients aren’t considered essential.

Quote

Other examples include sodium and vitamin A. Necessary for life; very bad in excess.



I’m not sure what point you’re making. But a meat based LCHF diet with 20g of complex carbs per day provides all the nutrition needed

Quote

You're smart enough to see this, but for some reason you have a blind spot with regard to carbs.

In my opinion it’s not I who has a blind spot.

Quote


And you've gone off the deep end when you pass from eliminating carbs for weight loss, to advocating the elimination of carbs to cure a wide variety of unrelated illnesses.

What
Makes you think any of those illnesses are not related?


Quote
One of the most reliable indicators of a quack is when they claim their treatment cures a variety of unrelated illnesses or conditions.

One of the most reliable indicators of a quack is discounting published studies in reputable peer review literature


Which quack or snake oil salesman can point to literally hundreds of RCTs reviews and other studies that support their claims.

I don’t make claims not supported by good science.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: daniel1948 on September 01, 2019, 09:07:18 PM
... One of the most reliable indicators of a quack is discounting published studies in reputable peer review literature

So you are claiming, or at least implying, that the entire mainstream medical community is made up of quacks, because they are not convinced by the studies you've found in your various internet searches?

Basically, you are claiming that you are better able to understand the totality of research on nutrition than people who have studied for years to become medical professionals. FWIW, this is the same attitude you will find over on the Flat Earth Society: people who think they understand physics, cosmology, optics, rocket engines, what-have-you, better than experts in those fields.

...I’m not sure what point you’re making. But a meat based LCHF diet with 20g of complex carbs per day provides all the nutrition needed

I was making the point that just because too much of something can kill you, does not necessarily mean it should be eliminated. And yes, limiting carbs to 20 grams per day means that you are virtually eliminating them. Carbs are an excellent source of energy and other nutrients. Too much carb will make you fat, and too much simple carb increases your risk of diabetes. That does not mean you need to limit carbs to 20 grams per day. That is your logical error. One of them, anyway.

Yes, you can live on a nearly 100% meat diet. If you don't give a damn about the environment or the massive suffering such a diet entails.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: bachfiend on September 01, 2019, 09:40:41 PM
... One of the most reliable indicators of a quack is discounting published studies in reputable peer review literature

So you are claiming, or at least implying, that the entire mainstream medical community is made up of quacks, because they are not convinced by the studies you've found in your various internet searches?

Basically, you are claiming that you are better able to understand the totality of research on nutrition than people who have studied for years to become medical professionals. FWIW, this is the same attitude you will find over on the Flat Earth Society: people who think they understand physics, cosmology, optics, rocket engines, what-have-you, better than experts in those fields.

...I’m not sure what point you’re making. But a meat based LCHF diet with 20g of complex carbs per day provides all the nutrition needed

I was making the point that just because too much of something can kill you, does not necessarily mean it should be eliminated. And yes, limiting carbs to 20 grams per day means that you are virtually eliminating them. Carbs are an excellent source of energy and other nutrients. Too much carb will make you fat, and too much simple carb increases your risk of diabetes. That does not mean you need to limit carbs to 20 grams per day. That is your logical error. One of them, anyway.

Yes, you can live on a nearly 100% meat diet. If you don't give a damn about the environment or the massive suffering such a diet entails.

No, you can’t live on a nearly 100% meat diet:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_poisoning

But you’re right.  The world can’t afford CarbShark’s fad diet.

I don’t know whether CarbShark’s fad diet is healthier or less healthier than other diets in preventing chronic heart disease, type 2 diabetes, dementia, cancer, and other common causes of morbidity and mortality.  The studies just haven’t been done.

All CarbShark has are short term studies in small populations with proxies of long term risk, such as blood lipid profiles.  Proxies of risk aren’t risk factors.

And whenever studies are cited, showing that low carbohydrate diets are associated with increased mortality, he discounts them as not restricting carbohydrates sufficiently.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: John Albert on September 01, 2019, 10:20:05 PM
So you are claiming, or at least implying, that the entire mainstream medical community is made up of quacks, because they are not convinced by the studies you've found in your various internet searches?

But Daniel, you just don't understand. Modern dietary science is not supported by evidence (https://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,49787.msg9552495.html#msg9552495), and the USDA recommended dietary guidelines are actually a global conspiracy orchestrated by the US government (https://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,49787.msg9552609.html#msg9552609), which dictates the food policies of the UN and the WHO, and several other countries (https://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,49787.msg9552813.html#msg9552813).


Yes, you can live on a nearly 100% meat diet. If you don't give a damn about the environment or the massive suffering such a diet entails.

That's vegan propaganda (https://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,43212.msg9603919.html#msg9603919)!
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: bachfiend on September 01, 2019, 10:31:29 PM
So you are claiming, or at least implying, that the entire mainstream medical community is made up of quacks, because they are not convinced by the studies you've found in your various internet searches?

But Daniel, you just don't understand. Modern dietary science is not supported by evidence (https://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,49787.msg9552495.html#msg9552495), and the USDA recommended dietary guidelines are actually a global conspiracy orchestrated by the US government (https://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,49787.msg9552609.html#msg9552609), which dictates the food policies of the UN and the WHO, and several other countries (https://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,49787.msg9552813.html#msg9552813).


Yes, you can live on a nearly 100% meat diet. If you don't give a damn about the environment or the massive suffering such a diet entails.

That's vegan propaganda (https://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,43212.msg9603919.html#msg9603919)!

Laugh out loud.  You’ve managed to pick out some of CarbShark’s finest pronouncements.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: John Albert on September 01, 2019, 10:48:25 PM
With enough rigorous questioning, woo promoters usually resort to conspiracism at some point.

How else to explain why their claims don't stand the test of scrutiny well enough to encourage a scientific consensus?
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: CarbShark on September 02, 2019, 11:11:48 AM
... One of the most reliable indicators of a quack is discounting published studies in reputable peer review literature

So you are claiming, or at least implying, that the entire mainstream medical community is made up of quacks, because they are not convinced by the studies you've found in your various internet searches?

No. Not at all. First, you have no basis to claim that the entire mainstream medical community is on one side on this issue. They are not. Second, for the medical community in general, nutrition is not that big of a deal. So many don't give it much thought.

Those who treat obesity and specialize in nutrition in general are far more open to the alternate hypothesis and its component parts.

Third, I've also noticed that it seems to be the younger doctors, the newer generation, that are more open to the hypothesis. We may need to wait for enough of the old guys to just retire before the alternate hypothesis is fully accepted by the mainstream.

Quote
Basically, you are claiming that you are better able to understand the totality of research on nutrition than people who have studied for years to become medical professionals.

You've repeated this several times and I've answered it but you keep going back to it. This is not the case. There are numerous well qualified scientists, doctors, researchers and nutrition experts who fully accept the alternate hypothesis. In some cases there are researchers who conducted studies fully expecting the findings to show the diet was unhealthy and ineffective, but found (and reported) the opposite.

No I am not claiming that I know more than your doctor or mine or the mainstream. I am claiming that the segment of the medical and nutritional communities who have conducted numerous studies and published numerous peer-reviewed articles in reputable scientific journals have a more convincing hypothesis than the mainstream's diet-heart-hypothesis.



FWIW, this is the same attitude you will find over on the Flat Earth Society: people who think they understand physics, cosmology, optics, rocket engines, what-have-you, better than experts in those fields.
...I’m not sure what point you’re making. But a meat based LCHF diet with 20g of complex carbs per day provides all the nutrition needed

Quote
I was making the point that just because too much of something can kill you, does not necessarily mean it should be eliminated.

That's not relevant. The point is that fast simple carbs, especially sugar and highly refined flour, are unhealthy and should be eliminated or minimized.

If you disagree with that, then you also disagree with the mainstream position.


Quote
And yes, limiting carbs to 20 grams per day means that you are virtually eliminating them. Carbs are an excellent source of energy and other nutrients. Too much carb will make you fat, and too much simple carb increases your risk of diabetes. That does not mean you need to limit carbs to 20 grams per day. That is your logical error. One of them, anyway.

No it doesn't mean that. I means you're reducing them to about 5% of your daily caloric intake. And no they are not an excellent source of energy. They can have a negative effect on blood glucose/insulin levels and directly leads to excess fat storage and over time TIID. And the other nutrients are available on a LCHF diet.


As for the 20g per day number, that is not a logical error as you keep repeating. At that level nearly everybody will go into ketosis. On most LCHF diets, once you've been in ketosis for a time you can gradually increase your carb count as long as you stay in ketosis. Some people report that over 50g a day is there limit. Others less.

 
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: CarbShark on September 02, 2019, 11:17:51 AM
With enough rigorous questioning, woo promoters usually resort to conspiracism at some point.

How else to explain why their claims don't stand the test of scrutiny well enough to encourage a scientific consensus?

Except I have never claimed a conspiracy.

That's you finding it easier to categorize and dismiss someone you disagree with as a conspiracy theorist rather than actually deal with the merits of the argument.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: daniel1948 on September 02, 2019, 11:28:23 AM
... for the medical community in general, nutrition is not that big of a deal.

I cannot remember much of anything about my doctors before I left college, and for a few years I didn't have a regular doctor. My memory of specific doctors starts when I was 30, and went to a new doctor who became my regular doctor for a number of years, until he retired.

All my doctors, from the one mentioned above right up to the present, stressed the importance of healthy eating (i.e. nutrition) and regular exercise. The mainstream sources I go to for health advice (Mayo Clinic, AMA, AHA, my health insurance company, and my nurse friend) all stress the importance of healthy eating and exercise for good health. All of them regard drugs as a last resort when lifestyle (especially healthy eating and exercise) fail to accomplish the goal of good health.

I have no idea where you get the idea that

... for the medical community in general, nutrition is not that big of a deal.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: CarbShark on September 02, 2019, 11:35:26 AM
... for the medical community in general, nutrition is not that big of a deal.

I cannot remember much of anything about my doctors before I left college, and for a few years I didn't have a regular doctor. My memory of specific doctors starts when I was 30, and went to a new doctor who became my regular doctor for a number of years, until he retired.

All my doctors, from the one mentioned above right up to the present, stressed the importance of healthy eating (i.e. nutrition) and regular exercise. The mainstream sources I go to for health advice (Mayo Clinic, AMA, AHA, my health insurance company, and my nurse friend) all stress the importance of healthy eating and exercise for good health. All of them regard drugs as a last resort when lifestyle (especially healthy eating and exercise) fail to accomplish the goal of good health.

I have no idea where you get the idea that

... for the medical community in general, nutrition is not that big of a deal.
Nutrition is not taught in medical schools; there is no recognized specialty for nutrition; the mainstream guidelines offer very little guidance on nutritional issues; there is limited funding for nutrition research.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: stands2reason on September 02, 2019, 11:46:14 AM
Nutrition is not taught in medical schools; there is no recognized specialty for nutrition;

Anyone who has actually been to medical school care to comment? I find this hard to believe.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: bachfiend on September 02, 2019, 04:26:12 PM
Nutrition is not taught in medical schools; there is no recognized specialty for nutrition;

Anyone who has actually been to medical school care to comment? I find this hard to believe.

I did my medical training in Australia in the ‘70s.  Nutrition was a big part of my training.  Nutrition is still a big part of medical practice, but it’s offloaded to qualified dieticians, because it’s very time consuming, largely counteracting the nonsense people such as CarbShark propounds.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: Harry Black on September 02, 2019, 04:32:10 PM
I recall  :steve: saying multiple times that it forms a part of medical training in the US and that the claim that it doesnt is bunk.
My MD friends in Ireland have said the same.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: daniel1948 on September 02, 2019, 04:35:48 PM
There we have it. Nutrition IS a part of medical training, at least in the United States, Australia, and Ireland.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: CarbShark on September 02, 2019, 04:41:57 PM
I recall  :steve: saying multiple times that it forms a part of medical training in the US and that the claim that it doesnt is bunk.
My MD friends in Ireland have said the same.

My understanding is that in the four years of class training in medical school they spend one class on nutrition.

Not one class, one session of one class.

I'd like to read it or hear it from :steve: rather than rely on someone's possibly biased memory.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: CarbShark on September 02, 2019, 05:11:14 PM
There we have it. Nutrition IS a part of medical training, at least in the United States, Australia, and Ireland.

Would you be interested in any actual evidence?

And, before you accuse me of cherry picking, take 10 minutes to google the topic and see what you get.



The State of Nutrition Education at US Medical Schools (https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jbe/2015/357627/)

Quote
Most US medical schools (86/121, 71%) fail to provide the recommended minimum 25 hours of nutrition education; 43 (36%) provide less than half that much. Nutrition instruction is still largely confined to preclinical courses, with an average of 14.3 hours occurring in this context. Less than half of all schools report teaching any nutrition in clinical practice; practice accounts for an average of only 4.7 hours overall. Seven of the 8 schools reporting at least 40 hours of nutrition instruction provided integrated courses together with clinical practice sessions. Conclusions. Many US medical schools still fail to prepare future physicians for everyday nutrition challenges in clinical practice. It cannot be a realistic expectation for physicians to effectively address obesity, diabetes, metabolic syndrome, hospital malnutrition, and many other conditions as long as they are not taught during medical school and residency training how to recognize and treat the nutritional root causes.

How Much Nutrition Education Do Doctors Get? | NutritionFacts.org (https://nutritionfacts.org/2017/06/08/how-much-nutrition-education-do-doctors-get/)
Quote
Medical students are still getting less than 20 hours of nutrition education over 4 years, and even most of that has limited clinical relevance. Thirty years ago, only 37 percent of medical schools had a single course in nutrition. According to the most recent national survey, that number has since dropped to 27 percent. And, it gets even worse after students graduate.


Doctors need more nutrition education | News | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health (https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/doctors-nutrition-education/)
Quote
Despite the connection between poor diet and many preventable diseases, only about one-fifth of American medical schools require students to take a nutrition course, according to David Eisenberg, adjunct associate professor of nutrition at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.


Status of nutrition education in medical schools (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2430660/)

Quote
With the move to a more integrated curriculum and problem-based learning at many medical schools, a substantial portion of the total nutrition instruction is occurring outside courses specifically dedicated to nutrition. The amount of nutrition education in medical schools remains inadequate.



How much does your doctor actually know about nutrition? | American Heart Association (https://www.heart.org/en/news/2018/05/03/how-much-does-your-doctor-actually-know-about-nutrition)
Quote
Dr. David Eisenberg, director of culinary nutrition at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, applauded the AHA report, saying it documents “the total lack of requirement” in most medical schools to understand the practical skills necessary to advise patients struggling with their weight, blood sugar, blood pressure or heart disease.


A Time for Change: Nutrition Education in Medicine – American Society for Nutrition (https://nutrition.org/a-time-for-change-nutrition-education-in-medicine/)
Quote
Patients expect physicians to be sources of information related to nutrition. In fact, 61% of respondents to an American Dietetic Association (now the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics) survey stated that they believe physicians are a “very credible” source of nutrition information.2 At the same time, though, in a study of internal medicine interns, 86% of respondents admitted to being inadequately trained to provide nutritional counseling. This inadequacy starts early in a physician’s career, with 51.1% of medical school graduates in 2005 reporting that they received insufficient nutrition education during medical school.3

Nutrition and diet advice often are small part of medical education - The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/your-doctor-may-not-be-the-best-source-of-nutrition-advice/2018/07/06/f8b3ecfe-78af-11e8-93cc-6d3beccdd7a3_story.html)
Quote
Experts say that while most physicians may recognize that diet is influential in health, they don’t learn enough about nutrition in medical school or the training programs that follow.


Food is medicine – so why aren't our doctors trained in the science of nutrition? (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/health-fitness/nutrition/food-medicine-arent-doctors-trained-science-nutrition/)
Quote
And yet, medical schools have not yet woken up to the need for robust nutrition training in the curriculum. Go to see your GP and there's a fair chance that they simply won't know enough about nutrition and how to prescribe lifestyle change – even after five years of schooling in medicine.

In fact, many practicing doctors don't consider nutrition to be a conversation that they should tackle with their patients – perhaps due to their lack of fundamental grounding in the subject.

Nutrition Education in Medical School, Residency Training, and Practice | Medical Education and Training | JAMA | JAMA Network (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2729245)
Quote
Nutrition education in medical school is rudimentary, at best, and limited for the duration of graduate medical education for many specialties. Requirements for meaningful nutrition education in all phases of medical training are long overdue.

Why nutrition education is inadequate in the medical curriculum: a qualitative study of students’ perspectives on barriers and strategies | BMC Medical Education | Full Text (https://bmcmededuc.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12909-018-1130-5)
Quote
Though students (med students) considered nutrition care as an important role for doctors they felt incapacitated by non-prioritisation of nutrition education, lack of faculty for teaching of nutrition education, poor application of nutrition science and poor collaboration with nutrition professionals. Incorporation of nutrition as a theme in medical education, improving collaboration, advocacy and creating enabling environments for nutrition education could address some of the barriers to nutrition education.


Doctors not taught to discuss diet, nutrition with patients - Chicago Tribune (https://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/health/sc-doctors-diet-nutrition-health-0803-20160801-story.html)
Quote
For the past 100 years, the standard medical school curriculum has required spending only a few days in four years discussing how nutrition affects wellness and the risk of progression of disease.

Why doctors need better nutrition training in med school (http://phlabs.com/why-doctors-need-better-nutrition-training-in-med-school)
Quote
Yet, most physicians do not feel comfortable discussing nutrition with their patients, and most medical students readily admit that they do not get enough training in nutrition during medical school. And studies confirm this, indicating that most U.S. medical schools and teaching hospitals lack adequate nutrition-related training. Medical students spend many hours memorizing the intricacies of cellular metabolism, but very little emphasis is placed on the practical application of assessing and managing the nutritional problems of patients.

Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: Interprofessional Education in Nutrition as an Essential Component of Medical Education - Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (https://jandonline.org/article/S2212-2672(17)30445-8/fulltext)

Quote
The history of nutrition in medical education has been described and reviewed in numerous publications since 1930 and extensively throughout the 1980s and 1990s.2 Research studies have shown deficiencies in nutrition education in medical schools and residency programs for more than 30 years.2, 3, 4 In 1982 and 1995, Weinsier5, 6 published consensus statements from medical nutrition educators who prioritized nutrition content and stressed its importance in the medical school curriculum. Professional organizations, medical nutrition experts, and student groups have published reports, articles, book chapters, user’s guides, and a congressional mandate urging medical schools to reform curriculum to spend more time integrating nutrition.7, 8, 9



Residency and specialties training in nutrition: a call for action (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3985219/)

Quote
Despite evidence that nutrition interventions reduce morbidity and mortality, malnutrition, including obesity, remains highly prevalent in hospitals and plays a major role in nearly every major chronic disease that afflicts patients. Physicians recognize that they lack the education and training in medical nutrition needed to counsel their patients and to ensure continuity of nutrition care in collaboration with other health care professionals. Nutrition education and training in specialty and subspecialty areas are inadequate, physician nutrition specialists are not recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties, and nutrition care coverage by third payers remains woefully limited. This article focuses on residency and fellowship education and training in the United States and provides recommendations for improving medical nutrition education and practice.



Now my information may be a few years out of date and it seems that many med schools are listening to the criticism and adding more nutrition to their curriculum for Drs., but so far it seems to be too little too late and does nothing about the large number of doctors practicing with inadequate nutrition training.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: bachfiend on September 02, 2019, 05:24:27 PM
I recall  :steve: saying multiple times that it forms a part of medical training in the US and that the claim that it doesnt is bunk.
My MD friends in Ireland have said the same.

My understanding is that in the four years of class training in medical school they spend one class on nutrition.

Not one class, one session of one class.

I'd like to read it or hear it from :steve: rather than rely on someone's possibly biased memory.

Well, I wouldn’t rely on your ‘understanding,’ because your understanding isn’t much.  I noted that my medical training in the ‘70s in Australia included a lot of nutrition.  I can’t say what the current situation is.  The medical curriculum changes over time.  When I retired 10 years ago, formal anatomy and histology teaching had been downgraded, so that if a medical graduate wanted to become a surgeon or a pathologist, he or she had to learn it later.

A lot of medical practice is learned from textbooks rather than from formal lectures or tutorials.  Medical textbooks always contain large chapters on diet and nutrition, which are expected reading, because diet and nutrition impacts in numerous conditions.  And tutors often mention diet and nutrition incidentally.  I remember a general surgeon showing my tutorial group a slide of an Indonesian boy with an apparent foreign body on his lower lid.  At a glance, it was an obvious case of prolapse of the lens of the eye, a sign of severe vitamin A deficiency, and an important cause of blindness.

CarbShark has the misconception that if doctors aren’t formally trained in something at university, then they’ll never learn it.  But doctors are expected to undertake continuing medical education, to keep up to date with advances in their field of practice, and to acquire knowledge useful in their interests in their field of practice.

CarbShark’s ‘experts’ in the ‘alternate’ nutritional science have done exactly the same thing.  Undertaken a form of continuing medical education, but one that has become derailed, going into pseudoscience and special pleading.  Doctors sometimes get derailed, propounding nonsense - including naturopathy.  And ‘magic’ diets.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: daniel1948 on September 02, 2019, 07:09:02 PM
Yep, a big wall of links from CarbShark purporting to "prove" that doctors receive virtually no training in an area that actual doctors are saying they do receive training in. One problem, of course, is that the internet is like the Bible: No matter what your preconceived idea is, you can find plenty of sites on the internet, as well as plenty of verses in the Bible, to support you.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: CarbShark on September 02, 2019, 07:21:52 PM
Yep, a big wall of links from CarbShark purporting to "prove" that doctors receive virtually no training in an area that actual doctors are saying they do receive training in. One problem, of course, is that the internet is like the Bible: No matter what your preconceived idea is, you can find plenty of sites on the internet, as well as plenty of verses in the Bible, to support you.
Go ahead. Do the same search find the same mix of peer review; mainstream; science publications; expert interviews that disagree.

All of those links were in the first two pages on google. How deep will you have to go in order to find a single reputable source that disagrees?

Your mistrust of sources of quality information is Trumpian in its scale.

All that’s missing is the “fake news” dismissal. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: CarbShark on September 02, 2019, 07:23:34 PM
I recall  :steve: saying multiple times that it forms a part of medical training in the US and that the claim that it doesnt is bunk.
My MD friends in Ireland have said the same.

My understanding is that in the four years of class training in medical school they spend one class on nutrition.

Not one class, one session of one class.

I'd like to read it or hear it from :steve: rather than rely on someone's possibly biased memory.

Well, I wouldn’t rely on your ‘understanding,’ because your understanding isn’t much.  I noted that my medical training in the ‘70s in Australia included a lot of nutrition.  I can’t say what the current situation is.  The medical curriculum changes over time.  When I retired 10 years ago, formal anatomy and histology teaching had been downgraded, so that if a medical graduate wanted to become a surgeon or a pathologist, he or she had to learn it later.

A lot of medical practice is learned from textbooks rather than from formal lectures or tutorials.  Medical textbooks always contain large chapters on diet and nutrition, which are expected reading, because diet and nutrition impacts in numerous conditions.  And tutors often mention diet and nutrition incidentally.  I remember a general surgeon showing my tutorial group a slide of an Indonesian boy with an apparent foreign body on his lower lid.  At a glance, it was an obvious case of prolapse of the lens of the eye, a sign of severe vitamin A deficiency, and an important cause of blindness.

CarbShark has the misconception that if doctors aren’t formally trained in something at university, then they’ll never learn it.  But doctors are expected to undertake continuing medical education, to keep up to date with advances in their field of practice, and to acquire knowledge useful in their interests in their field of practice.

CarbShark’s ‘experts’ in the ‘alternate’ nutritional science have done exactly the same thing.  Undertaken a form of continuing medical education, but one that has become derailed, going into pseudoscience and special pleading.  Doctors sometimes get derailed, propounding nonsense - including naturopathy.  And ‘magic’ diets.
I’m sorry but I can’t take your word for anything on any subject where you cite yourself as an authority.

Especially when it serves your purpose in an argument.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: bachfiend on September 02, 2019, 08:15:41 PM
I recall  :steve: saying multiple times that it forms a part of medical training in the US and that the claim that it doesnt is bunk.
My MD friends in Ireland have said the same.

My understanding is that in the four years of class training in medical school they spend one class on nutrition.

Not one class, one session of one class.k

I'd like to read it or hear it from :steve: rather than rely on someone's possibly biased memory.

Well, I wouldn’t rely on your ‘understanding,’ because your understanding isn’t much.  I noted that my medical training in the ‘70s in Australia included a lot of nutrition.  I can’t say what the current situation is.  The medical curriculum changes over time.  When I retired 10 years ago, formal anatomy and histology teaching had been downgraded, so that if a medical graduate wanted to become a surgeon or a pathologist, he or she had to learn it later.

A lot of medical practice is learned from textbooks rather than from formal lectures or tutorials.  Medical textbooks always contain large chapters on diet and nutrition, which are expected reading, because diet and nutrition impacts in numerous conditions.  And tutors often mention diet and nutrition incidentally.  I remember a general surgeon showing my tutorial group a slide of an Indonesian boy with an apparent foreign body on his lower lid.  At a glance, it was an obvious case of prolapse of the lens of the eye, a sign of severe vitamin A deficiency, and an important cause of blindness.

CarbShark has the misconception that if doctors aren’t formally trained in something at university, then they’ll never learn it.  But doctors are expected to undertake continuing medical education, to keep up to date with advances in their field of practice, and to acquire knowledge useful in their interests in their field of practice.

CarbShark’s ‘experts’ in the ‘alternate’ nutritional science have done exactly the same thing.  Undertaken a form of continuing medical education, but one that has become derailed, going into pseudoscience and special pleading.  Doctors sometimes get derailed, propounding nonsense - including naturopathy.  And ‘magic’ diets.
I’m sorry but I can’t take your word for anything on any subject where you cite yourself as an authority.

Especially when it serves your purpose in an argument.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Kettle meet pot...  so you’re an authority on medical education?  I’m not an authority on medical training.  I’m just relating my experiences as a medical student at university, and my experiences as a doctor in practice with the almost mandatory continuing medical education.

Formal teaching isn’t everything in medical education.  There isn’t enough time to cover everything with formal instruction in lectures.  It’s just the base for informal teaching and learning.  I remember as a clinical student being sent in to take a short history from a just admitted patient, and the surgical registrar gave me just a few minutes before coming in and asking for my opinion.  I answered that I thought it sounded as though the patient had pyloric stenosis (which in an adult isn’t good - it suggests a cancer in the pyloric canal).  The registrar asked what physical examination I’d use to confirm the diagnosis, and after a little thought (I hadn’t been formally taught it before), answered I’d shake the patient from side to side (I’d read it in a book).  And to my surprise, it worked - there was an obvious ‘sloshing’ sound as the stomach contents went from side to side.  And the registrar smiled...

I’m not advancing an argument.  I’m just saying that there’s little difference between diets that consist of 70% carbohydrates or 70% fat, or anything in between, provided they supply sufficient but not excessive calories, adequate vitamins, minerals, essential amino acids and fatty acids, and adequate but not excessive protein.

Another anecdote.  On my first day as a preclinical student at university two lecturers separately noted that around 50% of what we were going to be taught in the subsequent 6 years (all accepted and peer reviewed knowledge), would actually turn out to be false.  And that no one was capable of knowing in advance which 50% that would be.

I’m not a peer review fetishist like you.  Peer reviewed articles are often wrong.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: John Albert on September 02, 2019, 09:40:44 PM
CarbShark is just "teaching the controversy."
Title: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: CarbShark on September 02, 2019, 09:56:39 PM
I recall  :steve: saying multiple times that it forms a part of medical training in the US and that the claim that it doesnt is bunk.
My MD friends in Ireland have said the same.

My understanding is that in the four years of class training in medical school they spend one class on nutrition.

Not one class, one session of one class.k

I'd like to read it or hear it from :steve: rather than rely on someone's possibly biased memory.

Well, I wouldn’t rely on your ‘understanding,’ because your understanding isn’t much.  I noted that my medical training in the ‘70s in Australia included a lot of nutrition.  I can’t say what the current situation is.  The medical curriculum changes over time.  When I retired 10 years ago, formal anatomy and histology teaching had been downgraded, so that if a medical graduate wanted to become a surgeon or a pathologist, he or she had to learn it later.

A lot of medical practice is learned from textbooks rather than from formal lectures or tutorials.  Medical textbooks always contain large chapters on diet and nutrition, which are expected reading, because diet and nutrition impacts in numerous conditions.  And tutors often mention diet and nutrition incidentally.  I remember a general surgeon showing my tutorial group a slide of an Indonesian boy with an apparent foreign body on his lower lid.  At a glance, it was an obvious case of prolapse of the lens of the eye, a sign of severe vitamin A deficiency, and an important cause of blindness.

CarbShark has the misconception that if doctors aren’t formally trained in something at university, then they’ll never learn it.  But doctors are expected to undertake continuing medical education, to keep up to date with advances in their field of practice, and to acquire knowledge useful in their interests in their field of practice.

CarbShark’s ‘experts’ in the ‘alternate’ nutritional science have done exactly the same thing.  Undertaken a form of continuing medical education, but one that has become derailed, going into pseudoscience and special pleading.  Doctors sometimes get derailed, propounding nonsense - including naturopathy.  And ‘magic’ diets.
I’m sorry but I can’t take your word for anything on any subject where you cite yourself as an authority.

Especially when it serves your purpose in an argument.


Kettle meet pot...  so you’re an authority on medical education? 

No. Never claimed to be. That’s why I cite numerous sources. Not to glaze your eyes over but to support my arguments with objective information.

You should try it sometime



Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: daniel1948 on September 02, 2019, 10:00:49 PM
Go ahead. Do the same search find the same mix of peer review; mainstream; science publications; expert interviews that disagree.

Unlike you, I am aware that I am not qualified to assess the quality of published research. I rely on trusted experts. If my pipes leak, I call a plumber. If I have a question about the stars I ask an astronomer. And if I feel sick (and yearly, regardless) I see a doctor. And in each case, I take their advice because they have put in years of study to understand the subtleties.

It is the height of arrogance to think that you are better equipped to understand the scientific literature on diet better than people who've spent years at university and post-graduate level learning about the human body. Even if those people had not received one hour of training in nutrition in school, they are still a thousand times more capable of reading and understanding the literature than either you or I are. And in spite of your constant repetition of the claim that they don't care about nutrition, all my doctors, at least for the past 40 years, made it clear they were concerned about my diet and nutrition. (In fact, I've eaten an imperfect but relatively healthy diet since I quit eating meat 52 years ago, at which time my health improved greatly. And it took another upward turn when I started jogging about 36 years ago. Another change that my doctor encouraged.)
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: bachfiend on September 02, 2019, 10:10:21 PM
I recall  :steve: saying multiple times that it forms a part of medical training in the US and that the claim that it doesnt is bunk.
My MD friends in Ireland have said the same.

My understanding is that in the four years of class training in medical school they spend one class on nutrition.

Not one class, one session of one class.k

I'd like to read it or hear it from :steve: rather than rely on someone's possibly biased memory.

Well, I wouldn’t rely on your ‘understanding,’ because your understanding isn’t much.  I noted that my medical training in the ‘70s in Australia included a lot of nutrition.  I can’t say what the current situation is.  The medical curriculum changes over time.  When I retired 10 years ago, formal anatomy and histology teaching had been downgraded, so that if a medical graduate wanted to become a surgeon or a pathologist, he or she had to learn it later.

A lot of medical practice is learned from textbooks rather than from formal lectures or tutorials.  Medical textbooks always contain large chapters on diet and nutrition, which are expected reading, because diet and nutrition impacts in numerous conditions.  And tutors often mention diet and nutrition incidentally.  I remember a general surgeon showing my tutorial group a slide of an Indonesian boy with an apparent foreign body on his lower lid.  At a glance, it was an obvious case of prolapse of the lens of the eye, a sign of severe vitamin A deficiency, and an important cause of blindness.

CarbShark has the misconception that if doctors aren’t formally trained in something at university, then they’ll never learn it.  But doctors are expected to undertake continuing medical education, to keep up to date with advances in their field of practice, and to acquire knowledge useful in their interests in their field of practice.

CarbShark’s ‘experts’ in the ‘alternate’ nutritional science have done exactly the same thing.  Undertaken a form of continuing medical education, but one that has become derailed, going into pseudoscience and special pleading.  Doctors sometimes get derailed, propounding nonsense - including naturopathy.  And ‘magic’ diets.
I’m sorry but I can’t take your word for anything on any subject where you cite yourself as an authority.

Especially when it serves your purpose in an argument.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Kettle meet pot...  so you’re an authority on medical education? 

No. Never claimed to be. That’s why I cite numerous sources. Not to glaze your eyes over but to support my arguments with objective information.

You should try it sometime





I’m not an authority on medical training.  I’m just relating my experiences as a medical student at university, and my experiences as a doctor in practice with the almost mandatory continuing medical education.

Formal teaching isn’t everything in medical education.  There isn’t enough time to cover everything with formal instruction in lectures.  It’s just the base for informal teaching and learning.  I remember as a clinical student being sent in to take a short history from a just admitted patient, and the surgical registrar gave me just a few minutes before coming in and asking for my opinion.  I answered that I thought it sounded as though the patient had pyloric stenosis (which in an adult isn’t good - it suggests a cancer in the pyloric canal).  The registrar asked what physical examination I’d use to confirm the diagnosis, and after a little thought (I hadn’t been formally taught it before), answered I’d shake the patient from side to side (I’d read it in a book).  And to my surprise, it worked - there was an obvious ‘sloshing’ sound as the stomach contents went from side to side.  And the registrar smiled...

I’m not advancing an argument.  I’m just saying that there’s little difference between diets that consist of 70% carbohydrates or 70% fat, or anything in between, provided they supply sufficient but not excessive calories, adequate vitamins, minerals, essential amino acids and fatty acids, and adequate but not excessive protein.

Another anecdote.  On my first day as a preclinical student at university two lecturers separately noted that around 50% of what we were going to be taught in the subsequent 6 years (all accepted and peer reviewed knowledge), would actually turn out to be false.  And that no one was capable of knowing in advance which 50% that would be.

I’m not a peer review fetishist like you.  Peer reviewed articles are often wrong.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
[/quote]

You’ve formatted your reply wrongly.  You’ve included it amongst my comment.

But you’re still a peer review fetishist.  Peer reviewed articles aren’t necessarily right.  They’re just not obviously wrong to the two or three anonymous reviewers reading them.

Even worse, you’re doing a classic bait and switch.  No matter how many articles you link to, they’re not saying what you’re claiming.  You’re claiming that your low carbohydrate/high fat ketogenic diet is ‘best’ for preventing chronic diseases, including type 2 diabetes and obesity, and now cancer.

All your linked articles are small short term studies.  No deaths.  To know whether your diet is ‘best,’ you need large long term studies recording morbidity and mortality.  They don’t exist, save for the one (which you reject) showing increased mortality with low carbohydrate diets.

I don’t have a dog in this race.  I don’t think that there is a single ‘best’ diet.  Rather, the best diet is the one a person can keep to for years and decades, while maintaining a healthy body weight and body fat percentage.  For you it might be a ketogenic diet.  For me it’s intermittent fasting.
Title: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: CarbShark on September 03, 2019, 11:35:01 AM
Go ahead. Do the same search find the same mix of peer review; mainstream; science publications; expert interviews that disagree.

Unlike you, I am aware that I am not qualified to assess the quality of published research. I rely on trusted experts. If my pipes leak, I call a plumber.

What do you do if one plumber is always wrong about toilets but is a wizard with copper piping ?  Or if two plumbers disagree completely?  The all-purpose plumber says you need drastic and expensive measures to clear the drain, but the drain specialist says it’s just a clog and a quick snake will do and maybe don’t put everything in the disposal.

How do you know which plumber to rely on?

You have this idea that there is a monolith consensus on the diet heart hypothesis among nutrition experts, as their is with global warming, but that’s false.



Quote
If I have a question about the stars I ask an astronomer.

Me too. But you know what? If ask an astronomer to show me the evidence the world is not flat (your example from earlier) any astronomer will be able to, a dozen different ways   

A physicist can explain how atoms are split and tell you how they know.

But when you ask to see the evidence on some of the most basic and fundamental aspects of nutrition you get nothing.

Why should we consume 50 to 60 % of calories from carbs?  Nothing. Crickets.

Where’s the evidence that dietary cholesterol leads to heart disease? The answer is blowin’ on the wind.

Where’s the evidence that saturated fat on a low carb diet is bad. Hello?


Quote
And if I feel sick (and yearly, regardless) I see a doctor. And in each case, I take their advice because they have put in years of study to understand the subtleties.

For the most part most doctors haven’t learned and don’t understand the subtleties of nutrition.

Most will tell you as much.


Quote
It is the height of arrogance to think that you are better equipped to understand the scientific literature on diet better than people who've spent years at university and post-graduate level learning about the human body.

I’ve never claimed that.

Quote
Even if those people had not received one hour of training in nutrition in school, they are still a thousand times more capable of reading and understanding the literature than either you or I are.

A thousand times? No. First most studies are written in clear and concise English, and they nearly always do a good job of clearly and plainly expressing their findings and conclusions. Sometimes the statistics and the math take a lot more effort to come to grips with, but it’s not like their findings and conclusions won’t be consistent with their math





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: daniel1948 on September 03, 2019, 12:40:16 PM
...You have this idea that there is a monolith consensus on the diet heart hypothesis among nutrition experts, as their is with global warming, but that’s false.

There is a general consensus, and there are a few outliers, and there are a few crackpots. You've chosen to cherry-pick the outliers.

For the most part most doctors haven’t learned and don’t understand the subtleties of nutrition.

This has been debunked. But you keep repeating it because it is the crux of your entire argument.

Quote
It is the height of arrogance to think that you are better equipped to understand the scientific literature on diet better than people who've spent years at university and post-graduate level learning about the human body.

I’ve never claimed that.

Effectively, that is exactly what you are claiming when you assert that your cited articles prove your hypothesis. The implication is that mainstream doctors have failed to understand the literature, but that you do.
Title: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: CarbShark on September 03, 2019, 01:36:01 PM
...You have this idea that there is a monolith consensus on the diet heart hypothesis among nutrition experts, as their is with global warming, but that’s false.

There is a general consensus, and there are a few outliers, and there are a few crackpots. You've chosen to cherry-pick the outliers.

What do you base that on? Polling? Surveys? Studies? What are the numbers?

You are just making an assumption based on no real evidence.


Quote

For the most part most doctors haven’t learned and don’t understand the subtleties of nutrition.

This has been debunked. But you keep repeating it because it is the crux of your entire argument.

Did you not see the numerous sources I linked to supporting that argument?

And, no, it’s not the crux of anything. It’s a response to a diversion you raised about doctors being authorities on nutrition.

Quote
It is the height of arrogance to think that you are better equipped to understand the scientific literature on diet better than people who've spent years at university and post-graduate level learning about the human body.

I’ve never claimed that.
Quote
Effectively, that is exactly what you are claiming when you assert that your cited articles prove your hypothesis. The implication is that  doctors have failed to understand the literature, but that you do.

First I have never said prove. These studies support the hypothesis.

Second, no, most mainstream doctors don’t read every single LCHF diet study and review the way I do.



Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: bachfiend on September 03, 2019, 05:14:48 PM
...You have this idea that there is a monolith consensus on the diet heart hypothesis among nutrition experts, as their is with global warming, but that’s false.

There is a general consensus, and there are a few outliers, and there are a few crackpots. You've chosen to cherry-pick the outliers.

What do you base that on? Polling? Surveys? Studies? What are the numbers?

You are just making an assumption based on no real evidence.


Quote

For the most part most doctors haven’t learned and don’t understand the subtleties of nutrition.

This has been debunked. But you keep repeating it because it is the crux of your entire argument.

Did you not see the numerous sources I linked to supporting that argument?

And, no, it’s not the crux of anything. It’s a response to a diversion you raised about doctors being authorities on nutrition.

Quote
It is the height of arrogance to think that you are better equipped to understand the scientific literature on diet better than people who've spent years at university and post-graduate level learning about the human body.

I’ve never claimed that.
Quote
Effectively, that is exactly what you are claiming when you assert that your cited articles prove your hypothesis. The implication is that  doctors have failed to understand the literature, but that you do.

First I have never said prove. These studies support the hypothesis.

Second, no, most mainstream doctors don’t read every single LCHF diet study and review the way I do.

Yes, you’re right, most mainstream doctors who have spent years studying physiology, biochemistry and pathology, as well as clinical medicine, don’t read every single LCHF diet study and review the way you do.  They recognise bullshit when they see it, and don’t have your quasi-religious ideological bias to your diet, and don’t feel the need to proselytise it to complete strangers on a very minor sceptical website.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: gmalivuk on September 05, 2019, 08:35:56 AM

Its the mental burden of every man and his dog having a suggestion as to how they should deal with or approach their situation..

This

That’s one reason I haven’t even been tempted to share this information.

Another is the one guy is a good friend and I’d fear doing this could damage our friendship.

The other friend is being bombarded by all sorts of woo, including people telling her to avoid chemo. I’d be more inclined to share this with her because at least it doesn’t interfere with her treatment.

So, you’ve gone from stating that you’re going to share this ‘information’ to stating that you’re not tempted to share this information’ in just a few days.

At least we’re making some progress.

You understand the concept of past tense, don’t you?

In the past I haven’t been tempted to bring it up.
As long as we're being pedantic twats...

"I haven't been" is not the past tense, it is the present perfect. It means something started being true in the past and continues to be true now or might be true again in the future.

If I say, "That's why I've never seen Star Wars, several pages into a thread I started with my personal review of Star Wars, people would rightly point out the mismatch in my account.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: CarbShark on September 05, 2019, 02:08:27 PM

Its the mental burden of every man and his dog having a suggestion as to how they should deal with or approach their situation..

This

That’s one reason I haven’t even been tempted to share this information.

Another is the one guy is a good friend and I’d fear doing this could damage our friendship.

The other friend is being bombarded by all sorts of woo, including people telling her to avoid chemo. I’d be more inclined to share this with her because at least it doesn’t interfere with her treatment.

So, you’ve gone from stating that you’re going to share this ‘information’ to stating that you’re not tempted to share this information’ in just a few days.

At least we’re making some progress.

You understand the concept of past tense, don’t you?

In the past I haven’t been tempted to bring it up.
As long as we're being pedantic twats...

"I haven't been" is not the past tense, it is the present perfect. It means something started being true in the past and continues to be true now or might be true again in the future.


OK, so then I stand corrected. I should have said:

That's one reason I had not even been tempted to share this information, until now, when I am tempted to.

Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: Belgarath on September 05, 2019, 02:17:47 PM

Quote

For the most part most doctors haven’t learned and don’t understand the subtleties of nutrition.

This has been debunked. But you keep repeating it because it is the crux of your entire argument.

Did you not see the numerous sources I linked to supporting that argument?

And, no, it’s not the crux of anything. It’s a response to a diversion you raised about doctors being authorities on nutrition.


I know how you've linked sources.  I can give you hundreds of signed affidavits attesting to the fact that Trump is the best President EVER, and yet we know it's not true.  Your sources are crap and they don't say what you think they say.

Also, I'm absolutely certain you just strawmanned Daniel's claim.  I don't believe that he said that they were 'authorities' on nutrition, but that they were TRAINED on nutrition when you claimed they knew NOTHING about nutrition.  Please don't do that, it's a disingenuous way to argue.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: CarbShark on September 05, 2019, 03:34:05 PM

Quote

For the most part most doctors haven’t learned and don’t understand the subtleties of nutrition.

This has been debunked. But you keep repeating it because it is the crux of your entire argument.

Did you not see the numerous sources I linked to supporting that argument?

And, no, it’s not the crux of anything. It’s a response to a diversion you raised about doctors being authorities on nutrition.


I know how you've linked sources.  I can give you hundreds of signed affidavits attesting to the fact that Trump is the best President EVER, and yet we know it's not true.  Your sources are crap and they don't say what you think they say.

In other words, you haven't even looked at those linked sources. No, they are not crap and yes they say exactly what I think they say and I think they say exactly what they say.

I'm not sure if your comment about Trump is a red herring or a non-sequitur but the fact remains that I have linked to a variety of quality sources, from mainstream media, essays by experts and peer reviewed articles in reputable journals.

If you have any specific quibbles with any of them, let's here them.

Otherwise your denial of science and good sources is just as bad as Bachfiends.

Quote

Also, I'm absolutely certain you just strawmanned Daniel's claim.  I don't believe that he said that they were 'authorities' on nutrition, but that they were TRAINED on nutrition when you claimed they knew NOTHING about nutrition.  Please don't do that, it's a disingenuous way to argue.

That's no straw man. Daniel is making an argument from authority. I am just pointing that out.

And what's with this "I don't believe he said..." are you too lazy to look one page back? It's very easy.

Hint: Daniel didn't say that. He didn't even use the word trained.

Another hint: I never said they knew nothing (all caps or not) about nutrition. I did say most know very little about diet and nutrition, had little training, and most don't care that much about it. But yes they will say things like eat a healthy diet and hand you a pamphlet or refer you to a dietician or a psychiatrist.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: bachfiend on September 05, 2019, 04:08:04 PM

Quote

For the most part most doctors haven’t learned and don’t understand the subtleties of nutrition.

This has been debunked. But you keep repeating it because it is the crux of your entire argument.

Did you not see the numerous sources I linked to supporting that argument?

And, no, it’s not the crux of anything. It’s a response to a diversion you raised about doctors being authorities on nutrition.


I know how you've linked sources.  I can give you hundreds of signed affidavits attesting to the fact that Trump is the best President EVER, and yet we know it's not true.  Your sources are crap and they don't say what you think they say.

In other words, you haven't even looked at those linked sources. No, they are not crap and yes they say exactly what I think they say and I think they say exactly what they say.

I'm not sure if your comment about Trump is a red herring or a non-sequitur but the fact remains that I have linked to a variety of quality sources, from mainstream media, essays by experts and peer reviewed articles in reputable journals.

If you have any specific quibbles with any of them, let's here them.

Otherwise your denial of science and good sources is just as bad as Bachfiends.

Quote

Also, I'm absolutely certain you just strawmanned Daniel's claim.  I don't believe that he said that they were 'authorities' on nutrition, but that they were TRAINED on nutrition when you claimed they knew NOTHING about nutrition.  Please don't do that, it's a disingenuous way to argue.

That's no straw man. Daniel is making an argument from authority. I am just pointing that out.

And what's with this "I don't believe he said..." are you too lazy to look one page back? It's very easy.

Hint: Daniel didn't say that. He didn't even use the word trained.

Another hint: I never said they knew nothing (all caps or not) about nutrition. I did say most know very little about diet and nutrition, had little training, and most don't care that much about it. But yes they will say things like eat a healthy diet and hand you a pamphlet or refer you to a dietician or a psychiatrist.

Well, your sources say one thing, that your low carbohydrate/high fat ketogenic diet, is reasonable in the short term (months to a year or so), and you extrapolate them to the long term, many years or decades, declaring them to be best in preventing the development of chronic diseases such as type 2 diabetes, and now cancer.

What we need are long term studies looking at morbidity and mortality with the various diets.  We have one showing that low carbohydrate diets are associated with higher mortality and lower life expectancy, but you reject its findings.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: CarbShark on September 05, 2019, 04:15:49 PM

Well, your sources say one thing, that your low carbohydrate/high fat ketogenic diet, is reasonable in the short term (months to a year or so), and you extrapolate them to the long term, many years or decades, declaring them to be best in preventing the development of chronic diseases such as type 2 diabetes, and now cancer.


Try to keep up. We're discussing the links to articles indicating the doctors and medical professionals get inadequate training in diet and nutrition.

This is not the time for your repetition of that same crap. (actually there's never a good time for that, but it's not even on topic at this point.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: bachfiend on September 05, 2019, 06:04:15 PM

Well, your sources say one thing, that your low carbohydrate/high fat ketogenic diet, is reasonable in the short term (months to a year or so), and you extrapolate them to the long term, many years or decades, declaring them to be best in preventing the development of chronic diseases such as type 2 diabetes, and now cancer.


Try to keep up. We're discussing the links to articles indicating the doctors and medical professionals get inadequate training in diet and nutrition.

This is not the time for your repetition of that same crap. (actually there's never a good time for that, but it's not even on topic at this point.
[/quote]

OK, I stand corrected.  But I made the point that based on my experience of medical training, formal teaching in lectures or tutorials doesn’t cover everything doctors are required to know.  A very large part of medical education is done informally, incidentally almost like an apprenticeship.  All the medical textbooks include long chapters on diet and nutrition, which are required reading.

Doctors in training don’t get examined only on topics they’re exposed to in lectures and tutorials.  I remember from my preclinical training, the lecturer in anatomy didn’t manage to get below the knees, owing to running out of time at the end of the year, but the final examination for anatomy that year included questions on the anatomy of the foot.  We were expected to learn foot anatomy for ourselves.

I don’t feel that the teaching of diet and nutrition at university was inadequate.  And I’ve made the point that all doctors are required to undertake continuing medical education to keep up to date.  If anything, I feel my training in dental medicine was grossly inadequate.  There was just one lecture, and i was sick that day.

Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: CarbShark on September 05, 2019, 07:28:52 PM

Well, your sources say one thing, that your low carbohydrate/high fat ketogenic diet, is reasonable in the short term (months to a year or so), and you extrapolate them to the long term, many years or decades, declaring them to be best in preventing the development of chronic diseases such as type 2 diabetes, and now cancer.


Try to keep up. We're discussing the links to articles indicating the doctors and medical professionals get inadequate training in diet and nutrition.

This is not the time for your repetition of that same crap. (actually there's never a good time for that, but it's not even on topic at this point.

OK, I stand corrected.  But I made the point that based on my experience of medical training, formal teaching in lectures or tutorials doesn’t cover everything doctors are required to know.  A very large part of medical education is done informally, incidentally almost like an apprenticeship.  All the medical textbooks include long chapters on diet and nutrition, which are required reading.

Doctors in training don’t get examined only on topics they’re exposed to in lectures and tutorials.  I remember from my preclinical training, the lecturer in anatomy didn’t manage to get below the knees, owing to running out of time at the end of the year, but the final examination for anatomy that year included questions on the anatomy of the foot.  We were expected to learn foot anatomy for ourselves.

I don’t feel that the teaching of diet and nutrition at university was inadequate.  And I’ve made the point that all doctors are required to undertake continuing medical education to keep up to date.  If anything, I feel my training in dental medicine was grossly inadequate.  There was just one lecture, and i was sick that day.

It's good to know how you feel. Of course that doesn't refute the multiple articles I linked to that contradict your feelings.

It's too bad they didn't survey the doctors about their feelings about their training in diet and nutrition, because they very well may not feel it was inadequate, even though by every objective measure it is inadequate for most doctors at most medical schools.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: bachfiend on September 05, 2019, 07:59:39 PM

Well, your sources say one thing, that your low carbohydrate/high fat ketogenic diet, is reasonable in the short term (months to a year or so), and you extrapolate them to the long term, many years or decades, declaring them to be best in preventing the development of chronic diseases such as type 2 diabetes, and now cancer.


Try to keep up. We're discussing the links to articles indicating the doctors and medical professionals get inadequate training in diet and nutrition.

This is not the time for your repetition of that same crap. (actually there's never a good time for that, but it's not even on topic at this point.

OK, I stand corrected.  But I made the point that based on my experience of medical training, formal teaching in lectures or tutorials doesn’t cover everything doctors are required to know.  A very large part of medical education is done informally, incidentally almost like an apprenticeship.  All the medical textbooks include long chapters on diet and nutrition, which are required reading.

Doctors in training don’t get examined only on topics they’re exposed to in lectures and tutorials.  I remember from my preclinical training, the lecturer in anatomy didn’t manage to get below the knees, owing to running out of time at the end of the year, but the final examination for anatomy that year included questions on the anatomy of the foot.  We were expected to learn foot anatomy for ourselves.

I don’t feel that the teaching of diet and nutrition at university was inadequate.  And I’ve made the point that all doctors are required to undertake continuing medical education to keep up to date.  If anything, I feel my training in dental medicine was grossly inadequate.  There was just one lecture, and i was sick that day.

It's good to know how you feel. Of course that doesn't refute the multiple articles I linked to that contradict your feelings.

It's too bad they didn't survey the doctors about their feelings about their training in diet and nutrition, because they very well may not feel it was inadequate, even though by every objective measure it is inadequate for most doctors at most medical schools.

But doctors in practice aren’t using the stuff they were exposed to in formal lectures and tutorials at university.  They’re using the stuff they learnt informally, and stuff that was reinforced by experience during practice, and as a result of continuing education.

It’s not called ‘medical practice’ for nothing.  If your doctor is using only the stuff formally taught at medical school, then he or she needs to be struck off the medical registry as quickly as possible.
Title: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: CarbShark on September 05, 2019, 08:07:12 PM

Well, your sources say one thing, that your low carbohydrate/high fat ketogenic diet, is reasonable in the short term (months to a year or so), and you extrapolate them to the long term, many years or decades, declaring them to be best in preventing the development of chronic diseases such as type 2 diabetes, and now cancer.


Try to keep up. We're discussing the links to articles indicating the doctors and medical professionals get inadequate training in diet and nutrition.

This is not the time for your repetition of that same crap. (actually there's never a good time for that, but it's not even on topic at this point.

OK, I stand corrected.  But I made the point that based on my experience of medical training, formal teaching in lectures or tutorials doesn’t cover everything doctors are required to know.  A very large part of medical education is done informally, incidentally almost like an apprenticeship.  All the medical textbooks include long chapters on diet and nutrition, which are required reading.

Doctors in training don’t get examined only on topics they’re exposed to in lectures and tutorials.  I remember from my preclinical training, the lecturer in anatomy didn’t manage to get below the knees, owing to running out of time at the end of the year, but the final examination for anatomy that year included questions on the anatomy of the foot.  We were expected to learn foot anatomy for ourselves.

I don’t feel that the teaching of diet and nutrition at university was inadequate.  And I’ve made the point that all doctors are required to undertake continuing medical education to keep up to date.  If anything, I feel my training in dental medicine was grossly inadequate.  There was just one lecture, and i was sick that day.

It's good to know how you feel. Of course that doesn't refute the multiple articles I linked to that contradict your feelings.

It's too bad they didn't survey the doctors about their feelings about their training in diet and nutrition, because they very well may not feel it was inadequate, even though by every objective measure it is inadequate for most doctors at most medical schools.

But doctors in practice aren’t using the stuff they were exposed to in formal lectures and tutorials at university.  They’re using the stuff they learnt informally, and stuff that was reinforced by experience during practice, and as a result of continuing education.

It’s not called ‘medical practice’ for nothing.  If your doctor is using only the stuff formally taught at medical school, then he or she needs to be struck off the medical registry as quickly as possible.
Well if you’d bothered to look at those articles you’d realize the inadequacy of nutrition education extends to continuing education.

So how are you imagining Drs learn about nutrition? Trial and error? 

That’s how they became experts in blood letting back in the day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: daniel1948 on September 05, 2019, 08:15:46 PM
So now it comes out: CarbShark regards doctors as basically modern-day blood-letters. We've already see that he considers himself more qualified to read the medical literature than they are, and that he considers himself more knowledgeable on matters of nutrition than they are. This brings it full circle. He just doesn't think they're good for anything.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: bachfiend on September 05, 2019, 08:37:36 PM

Well, your sources say one thing, that your low carbohydrate/high fat ketogenic diet, is reasonable in the short term (months to a year or so), and you extrapolate them to the long term, many years or decades, declaring them to be best in preventing the development of chronic diseases such as type 2 diabetes, and now cancer.


Try to keep up. We're discussing the links to articles indicating the doctors and medical professionals get inadequate training in diet and nutrition.

This is not the time for your repetition of that same crap. (actually there's never a good time for that, but it's not even on topic at this point.

OK, I stand corrected.  But I made the point that based on my experience of medical training, formal teaching in lectures or tutorials doesn’t cover everything doctors are required to know.  A very large part of medical education is done informally, incidentally almost like an apprenticeship.  All the medical textbooks include long chapters on diet and nutrition, which are required reading.

Doctors in training don’t get examined only on topics they’re exposed to in lectures and tutorials.  I remember from my preclinical training, the lecturer in anatomy didn’t manage to get below the knees, owing to running out of time at the end of the year, but the final examination for anatomy that year included questions on the anatomy of the foot.  We were expected to learn foot anatomy for ourselves.

I don’t feel that the teaching of diet and nutrition at university was inadequate.  And I’ve made the point that all doctors are required to undertake continuing medical education to keep up to date.  If anything, I feel my training in dental medicine was grossly inadequate.  There was just one lecture, and i was sick that day.

It's good to know how you feel. Of course that doesn't refute the multiple articles I linked to that contradict your feelings.

It's too bad they didn't survey the doctors about their feelings about their training in diet and nutrition, because they very well may not feel it was inadequate, even though by every objective measure it is inadequate for most doctors at most medical schools.

But doctors in practice aren’t using the stuff they were exposed to in formal lectures and tutorials at university.  They’re using the stuff they learnt informally, and stuff that was reinforced by experience during practice, and as a result of continuing education.

It’s not called ‘medical practice’ for nothing.  If your doctor is using only the stuff formally taught at medical school, then he or she needs to be struck off the medical registry as quickly as possible.
Well if you’d bothered to look at those articles you’d realize the inadequacy of nutrition education extends to continuing education.

So how are you imagining Drs learn about nutrition? Trial and error? 

That’s how they became experts in blood letting back in the day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not ‘trial and error.’  Informal teaching, which includes reading a wide range of the literature, including text books, medical journals, and even newspapers.  And the Internet.  Doctor Google mightn’t be very good for the common conditions, but it has been shown to be good for the rare and unusual.

Blood letting was taught formally ‘in the day.’  Not by ‘trial and error.’  George Washington was killed by his physicians letting around 40% of his blood volume to get rid of ‘the toxins circulating in his blood,’ resulting from a possibly minor sore throat.

Doctors often believe nonsense.  The most recent one is the idea that carbohydrates are unnatural and harmful to health.  Low carbohydrate proponent doctors are the modern blood letters.  Blood letters made a good income because their victims patients believed them.  Their modern equivalents are doing the same.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: CarbShark on September 05, 2019, 10:32:47 PM
So now it comes out: CarbShark regards doctors as basically modern-day blood-letters. We've already see that he considers himself more qualified to read the medical literature than they are, and that he considers himself more knowledgeable on matters of nutrition than they are. This brings it full circle. He just doesn't think they're good for anything.

No no no.

I am equating bachfiends alleged medical experience, practice and approach as modern day blood letting.

I would argue I am more capable to read and comprehend medical literature than he and am more knowledgeable in matters of nutrition than he.

That he isn’t good for anything.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: bachfiend on September 05, 2019, 11:42:02 PM
So now it comes out: CarbShark regards doctors as basically modern-day blood-letters. We've already see that he considers himself more qualified to read the medical literature than they are, and that he considers himself more knowledgeable on matters of nutrition than they are. This brings it full circle. He just doesn't think they're good for anything.

No no no.

I am equating bachfiends alleged medical experience, practice and approach as modern day blood letting.

I would argue I am more capable to read and comprehend medical literature than he and am more knowledgeable in matters of nutrition than he.

That he isn’t good for anything.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Now you’re slandering me, and impugning my medical practice.  My basic philosophy has always been to ask for evidence for what we do, not to accept everything that’s in print as being true, and ‘to firstly do no harm.’

Your comprehension of the medical literature is abysmal, starting with your peer review fetishism.  As I’ve pointed out many times, peer review doesn’t mean that an article is true.  It just means that the article is not obviously wrong, at least not to the two or three anonymous reviewers.

And your knowledge of nutrition and diet is substandard, as you’ve demonstrated many times, including your insistence that ketone bodies aren’t derived from protein along with fat.

I’m almost tempted to report you to the moderator as a result of your personal attack on my integrity.

But to repeat myself.  You’ve been arguing that doctors are ignorant, and that the current epidemic of obesity, type 2 diabetes, and other related conditions, is due to flawed dietary guidelines, and doctors pushing them on their patients, who then slavishly follow them.

I argue, and the history of the epidemic is consistent with my argument, that the dietary guidelines were in response to the epidemic, starting in the ‘60s, and that doctors aren’t able to compete with their recommendations against the considerable power of fast food chains, processed food manufacturers and their advertisers.  Patients may see their doctors several times a year at most, but they’re exposed to advertisements for very unhealthy food high in sugar, fat and salt (the standard American diet) many times a day.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: daniel1948 on September 06, 2019, 12:04:07 PM
So now it comes out: CarbShark regards doctors as basically modern-day blood-letters. We've already see that he considers himself more qualified to read the medical literature than they are, and that he considers himself more knowledgeable on matters of nutrition than they are. This brings it full circle. He just doesn't think they're good for anything.

No no no.

I am equating bachfiends alleged medical experience, practice and approach as modern day blood letting.

I would argue I am more capable to read and comprehend medical literature than he and am more knowledgeable in matters of nutrition than he.

Thank you. You make my point in the same breath as you deny it. Bachfiend is a trained medical doctor and you claim to know more than he does about medicine and you regard him as nothing but a modern day bloodletter.

And though you don't make direct reference to my doctors, you have said that you know more about medicine than they do, and that you understand the literature better than they do, since they directly contradict your assertions, and give essentially the same advice that bachfiend does.

And you base this entire notion on the unfounded assertion that medical doctors do not care about nutrition and that they carefully avoid reading the literature on nutrition, or that if they do read it they cannot understand it (though you think you do) or that they reject it for unstated reasons which could only be a desire to keep their patients ignorant of an easy path to health.

But I have never had a doctor who didn't care about nutrition, or who regarded it as unimportant, or who didn't urge me to eat a healthy diet. So all that remains of your thesis is the claim that you are better able to understand published research papers than my doctors are. A claim I reject. Though in charity to you I will grant that your Google searches might just be giving you the small minority of papers that Google thinks you want, or that get the most hits, since fringe enthusiasts will necessarily raise the search score of those papers.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: wastrel on September 06, 2019, 12:36:08 PM
Now you’re slandering me, and impugning my medical practice.

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSdZzihmi1KTGiiOFh2fWY_sSp8MEGyg2njpadBdIYQXAebD8ba)
Title: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: CarbShark on September 06, 2019, 12:41:01 PM
So now it comes out: CarbShark regards doctors as basically modern-day blood-letters. We've already see that he considers himself more qualified to read the medical literature than they are, and that he considers himself more knowledgeable on matters of nutrition than they are. This brings it full circle. He just doesn't think they're good for anything.

No no no.

I am equating bachfiends alleged medical experience, practice and approach as modern day blood letting.

I would argue I am more capable to read and comprehend medical literature than he and am more knowledgeable in matters of nutrition than he.

Thank you. You make my point in the same breath as you deny it. Bachfiend is a trained medical doctor and you claim to know more than he does about medicine and you regard him as nothing but a modern day bloodletter.
How do you know that?
That’s what he says but on an anonymous Internet forum you can claim to be anything.

I based those comments not on his alleged resume but on what he has said.

He also continually disparages peer review scientific studies which were the one thing that lifted us out of the world of blood letters.

Quote
And though you don't make direct reference to my doctors, you have said that you know more about medicine than they do,

Bullshit. I have absolutely never said that about your doctor or any doctor.

Quote
and that you understand the literature better than they do, since they directly contradict your assertions, and give essentially the same advice that bachfiend does.

Nor have I ever said that. Those are erroneous conclusions that you draw based on false assumptions.

I noticed you haven’t answered or even acknowledge my question about a lack of consensus among doctors and nutrition experts.

 
Quote
And you base this entire notion on the unfounded assertion that medical doctors do not care about nutrition and that they carefully avoid reading the literature on nutrition, or that if they do read it they cannot understand it (though you think you do) or that they reject it for unstated reasons which could only be a desire to keep their patients ignorant of an easy path to health.

More bullshit. The alternate hypothesis is based on numerous studies and analysis by experts in the various fields.

This entire tangent is based on you asking why the mainstream hasn’t embraced the alternate theory. I offered some suggestions and you extrapolated that beyond all recognition. 
Quote
But I have never had a doctor who didn't care about nutrition, or who regarded it as unimportant, or who didn't urge me to eat a healthy diet.

Well first you anecdotes are not proof or even evidence. Second, anybody, doctor or not, is going to tell you to eat a healthy diet.


Quote

So all that remains of your thesis is the claim that you are better able to understand published research papers than my doctors are. A claim I reject.

I’ve never made that claim. That’s entirely your conjecture.

It must be easier to argue by making up things the other guy says and then rejecting them.


Quote
Though in charity to you I will grant that your Google searches might just be giving you the small minority of papers that Google thinks you want, or that get the most hits, since fringe enthusiasts will necessarily raise the search score of those papers.

First, I never use google to search for studies in peer review journals. Even google scholar is less reliable and not as complete as pubmed.

Second you have no basis to claim that I am only looking at a minority of papers.

By far, the bulk of RCT studies comparing diet and nutrition find LCHF diets to be the most effective and healthiest weight loss diets for most people.

Further, by a wide margin the bulk of studies that look at the effects a diet high in sugar and fast simple carbs (highly processed) support the alt theory.

Go ahead and look for yourself. Prove me wrong. Just drop this entire argument from ignorance / appeal to authority. It’s unbecoming a skeptic.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: bachfiend on September 06, 2019, 03:13:18 PM
Now you’re slandering me, and impugning my medical practice.

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSdZzihmi1KTGiiOFh2fWY_sSp8MEGyg2njpadBdIYQXAebD8ba)

The Internet is more ‘spoken’ than ‘written,’ so it’s more slander than libel.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: bachfiend on September 06, 2019, 03:35:16 PM
So now it comes out: CarbShark regards doctors as basically modern-day blood-letters. We've already see that he considers himself more qualified to read the medical literature than they are, and that he considers himself more knowledgeable on matters of nutrition than they are. This brings it full circle. He just doesn't think they're good for anything.

No no no.

I am equating bachfiends alleged medical experience, practice and approach as modern day blood letting.

I would argue I am more capable to read and comprehend medical literature than he and am more knowledgeable in matters of nutrition than he.

Thank you. You make my point in the same breath as you deny it. Bachfiend is a trained medical doctor and you claim to know more than he does about medicine and you regard him as nothing but a modern day bloodletter.
How do you know that?
That’s what he says but on an anonymous Internet forum you can claim to be anything.

I based those comments not on his alleged resume but on what he has said.

He also continually disparages peer review scientific studies which were the one thing that lifted us out of the world of blood letters.

Quote
And though you don't make direct reference to my doctors, you have said that you know more about medicine than they do,

Bullshit. I have absolutely never said that about your doctor or any doctor.

Quote
and that you understand the literature better than they do, since they directly contradict your assertions, and give essentially the same advice that bachfiend does.

Nor have I ever said that. Those are erroneous conclusions that you draw based on false assumptions.

I noticed you haven’t answered or even acknowledge my question about a lack of consensus among doctors and nutrition experts.

 
Quote
And you base this entire notion on the unfounded assertion that medical doctors do not care about nutrition and that they carefully avoid reading the literature on nutrition, or that if they do read it they cannot understand it (though you think you do) or that they reject it for unstated reasons which could only be a desire to keep their patients ignorant of an easy path to health.

More bullshit. The alternate hypothesis is based on numerous studies and analysis by experts in the various fields.

This entire tangent is based on you asking why the mainstream hasn’t embraced the alternate theory. I offered some suggestions and you extrapolated that beyond all recognition. 
Quote
But I have never had a doctor who didn't care about nutrition, or who regarded it as unimportant, or who didn't urge me to eat a healthy diet.

Well first you anecdotes are not proof or even evidence. Second, anybody, doctor or not, is going to tell you to eat a healthy diet.


Quote

So all that remains of your thesis is the claim that you are better able to understand published research papers than my doctors are. A claim I reject.

I’ve never made that claim. That’s entirely your conjecture.

It must be easier to argue by making up things the other guy says and then rejecting them.


Quote
Though in charity to you I will grant that your Google searches might just be giving you the small minority of papers that Google thinks you want, or that get the most hits, since fringe enthusiasts will necessarily raise the search score of those papers.

First, I never use google to search for studies in peer review journals. Even google scholar is less reliable and not as complete as pubmed.

Second you have no basis to claim that I am only looking at a minority of papers.

By far, the bulk of RCT studies comparing diet and nutrition find LCHF diets to be the most effective and healthiest weight loss diets for most people.

Further, by a wide margin the bulk of studies that look at the effects a diet high in sugar and fast simple carbs (highly processed) support the alt theory.

Go ahead and look for yourself. Prove me wrong. Just drop this entire argument from ignorance / appeal to authority. It’s unbecoming a skeptic.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I graduated in 1978 from the University of Western Australia with a MB,BS (bachelor of medicine, bachelor of surgery) after 6 years university, 3 years preclinical, 3 years clinical).  Then I did 3 years of clinical medicine, before going into anatomical pathology, in which I had 6 years training before being awarded a FRCPathA (fellowship of the Royal Collage of Pathologists of Australasia).  And then I worked for 25 years in clinical pathology before retiring.

I don’t disparage peer reviewed papers.  But they not always right.  As I’ve noted many times, all peer review means is that the papers aren’t obviously wrong, at least not to the 2 or 3 anonymous reviewers.

CarbShark is a peer review fetishist.  He thinks peer reviewed papers apparently supporting his quasi-religious diet are always true, even when he’s extrapolated the papers’ conclusions beyond all recognition.

It’s reasonable that low carbohydrate/high fat ketogenic diets are acceptable for short term weight loss, because that’s all that the papers and studies that CarbShark cites show.  They’re short term studies (over months) in small study groups.  But CarbShark extrapolates these studies to claim that his diet is ‘best’ long term, over years and decades, and should be recommended for everyone.

But the data doesn’t exist.  Save for the study in the Lancet showing that low carbohydrate diets are associated with higher mortality and lower life expectancy.  Which CarbShark dismisses.

Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: CarbShark on September 06, 2019, 04:27:35 PM
This is an anonymous internet forum. For all we know you may be a bored teenage girl who enjoys trolling skeptics.

You can slander or libel someone who is anonymous.

Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: bachfiend on September 06, 2019, 05:26:26 PM
This is an anonymous internet forum. For all we know you may be a bored teenage girl who enjoys trolling skeptics.

You can slander or libel someone who is anonymous.

But I’m not a bored teenage girl.   For all we know, you’re a bored teenage girl who enjoys trolling sceptics.

You claim not to be a doctor (well, that part’s true), but have done a ton a ton of research on diet and nutrition, which is laughable.  You’ve done a lot of searching on the Internet, not research, and you’ve managed to pick up a lot of nonsense along the way, such as your assertion that you can tell when a person is eating too much protein; the person’s blood sugar level goes up.

I was impressed on my first day of university when two lecturers told us, separately, that half of what we were going to be taught over the next 6 years (all peer reviewed, by the way) would turn out to be wrong, and that they had no way of knowing in advance which half is right, and which half is wrong.

Not only do you reckon that doctors in training aren’t getting enough formal instruction in diet and nutrition, so that they’re ignorant, you think that what they’re actually being taught is wrong.  And that they should be indoctrinated with the ‘alternate hypothesis.’

Peer review has existed since around 1660, with the establishment of the Royal Society.  Blood letting was a peer review approved form of treatment (and it’s still OK treating haemochromatosis  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HFE_hereditary_haemochromatosis ).

You’re telling a story.  You claim that the current epidemic of obesity and type 2 diabetes is due to ignorant doctors pushing the dietary guidelines on their patients, who then slavishly follow them, who then stack on the weight.

I’ll tell a story.  One of my nephews is a general practitioner in a large regional town.  He’s almost at retirement age after a long clinical practice.  At our last family get together, one of my other nephews mentioned that he’d lost 30 kg and went from being obese to being normal weight.  Not by diet, not by exercise - he had a gastric sleeve.  My GP nephew then noted that in his experience - diet doesn’t work, exercise doesn’t work, in losing weight.

Well, actually doctors’ recommending diet and exercise doesn’t work.  Doctors can’t compete with fast food restaurant chains, processed food manufacturers and their relentless marketing.  The guidelines were a result of the epidemic of increasing obesity and type 2 diabetes, not the cause.  People just aren’t following them.  The guidelines recommend healthy eating.

Your attitude is obviously laughable after you claimed that a person could still meet the guidelines eating one meal a day from MacDonalds.  Provided the other two meals were rather restricted.

Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: wastrel on September 06, 2019, 05:33:19 PM
Now you’re slandering me, and impugning my medical practice.

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSdZzihmi1KTGiiOFh2fWY_sSp8MEGyg2njpadBdIYQXAebD8ba)

The Internet is more ‘spoken’ than ‘written,’ so it’s more slander than libel.

Well, my post was mostly a joke....but what an odd thing to double down on.

What are your feelings about Hurricane Dorian hitting Alabama?
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: bachfiend on September 06, 2019, 06:17:48 PM
Now you’re slandering me, and impugning my medical practice.

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSdZzihmi1KTGiiOFh2fWY_sSp8MEGyg2njpadBdIYQXAebD8ba)

The Internet is more ‘spoken’ than ‘written,’ so it’s more slander than libel.

Well, my post was mostly a joke....but what an odd thing to double down on.

What are your feelings about Hurricane Dorian hitting Alabama?

To use a CarbSharkarism, you’re off-topic.  It was a joke?  I thought jokes were supposed to be funny.  Apparently not.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: CarbShark on September 06, 2019, 06:23:03 PM
This is an anonymous internet forum. For all we know you may be a bored teenage girl who enjoys trolling skeptics.

You can slander or libel someone who is anonymous.

But I’m not a bored teenage girl.   For all we know, you’re a bored teenage girl who enjoys trolling sceptics.

You claim not to be a doctor (well, that part’s true), but have done a ton a ton of research on diet and nutrition, which is laughable.  You’ve done a lot of searching on the Internet, not research, and you’ve managed to pick up a lot of nonsense along the way, such as your assertion that you can tell when a person is eating too much protein; the person’s blood sugar level goes up.

Blood sugar can go up when one eats excess protein, but I don't recall asserting that I could tell when that was happening.
Quote


Quote
Your attitude is obviously laughable after you claimed that a person could still meet the guidelines eating one meal a day from MacDonalds.  Provided the other two meals were rather restricted.

The other two meals could be typical McDonalds breakfasts and lunches.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: bachfiend on September 06, 2019, 07:54:43 PM
This is an anonymous internet forum. For all we know you may be a bored teenage girl who enjoys trolling skeptics.

You can slander or libel someone who is anonymous.

But I’m not a bored teenage girl.   For all we know, you’re a bored teenage girl who enjoys trolling sceptics.

You claim not to be a doctor (well, that part’s true), but have done a ton a ton of research on diet and nutrition, which is laughable.  You’ve done a lot of searching on the Internet, not research, and you’ve managed to pick up a lot of nonsense along the way, such as your assertion that you can tell when a person is eating too much protein; the person’s blood sugar level goes up.

Blood sugar can go up when one eats excess protein, but I don't recall asserting that I could tell when that was happening.
Quote


Quote
Your attitude is obviously laughable after you claimed that a person could still meet the guidelines eating one meal a day from MacDonalds.  Provided the other two meals were rather restricted.

The other two meals could be typical McDonalds breakfasts and lunches.

It took me a bit of hunting, but I found your claim that if you’re on a low carbohydrate diet, excess protein intake is indicated by a rise in blood sugar levels:

https://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,43212.1650.html

And you’re doubling down when you claim that you could meet the dietary guidelines by eating all your meals at MacDonalds.  That’s a flat out lie.
Title: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: CarbShark on September 06, 2019, 08:24:40 PM
This is an anonymous internet forum. For all we know you may be a bored teenage girl who enjoys trolling skeptics.

You can slander or libel someone who is anonymous.

But I’m not a bored teenage girl.   For all we know, you’re a bored teenage girl who enjoys trolling sceptics.

You claim not to be a doctor (well, that part’s true), but have done a ton a ton of research on diet and nutrition, which is laughable.  You’ve done a lot of searching on the Internet, not research, and you’ve managed to pick up a lot of nonsense along the way, such as your assertion that you can tell when a person is eating too much protein; the person’s blood sugar level goes up.

Blood sugar can go up when one eats excess protein, but I don't recall asserting that I could tell when that was happening.
Quote


Quote
Your attitude is obviously laughable after you claimed that a person could still meet the guidelines eating one meal a day from MacDonalds.  Provided the other two meals were rather restricted.

The other two meals could be typical McDonalds breakfasts and lunches.

It took me a bit of hunting, but I found your claim that if you’re on a low carbohydrate diet, excess protein intake is indicated by a rise in blood sugar levels:

https://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,43212.1650.html

And you’re doubling down when you claim that you could meet the dietary guidelines by eating all your meals at MacDonalds.  That’s a flat out lie.
So we’re supposed to reread an entire thread to find some quote?  Why not link to the post  itself?

There you go trolling Again.

And showing your ignorance of the dietary guideline and the McDonalds menu. But at least you’re  confident and certain in your ignorance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: bachfiend on September 06, 2019, 08:31:17 PM
This is an anonymous internet forum. For all we know you may be a bored teenage girl who enjoys trolling skeptics.

You can slander or libel someone who is anonymous.

But I’m not a bored teenage girl.   For all we know, you’re a bored teenage girl who enjoys trolling sceptics.

You claim not to be a doctor (well, that part’s true), but have done a ton a ton of research on diet and nutrition, which is laughable.  You’ve done a lot of searching on the Internet, not research, and you’ve managed to pick up a lot of nonsense along the way, such as your assertion that you can tell when a person is eating too much protein; the person’s blood sugar level goes up.

Blood sugar can go up when one eats excess protein, but I don't recall asserting that I could tell when that was happening.
Quote


Quote
Your attitude is obviously laughable after you claimed that a person could still meet the guidelines eating one meal a day from MacDonalds.  Provided the other two meals were rather restricted.

The other two meals could be typical McDonalds breakfasts and lunches.

It took me a bit of hunting, but I found your claim that if you’re on a low carbohydrate diet, excess protein intake is indicated by a rise in blood sugar levels:

https://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,43212.1650.html

And you’re doubling down when you claim that you could meet the dietary guidelines by eating all your meals at MacDonalds.  That’s a flat out lie.
So we’re supposed to reread an entire thread to find some quote?  Why not link to the post  itself?

There you go trolling Again.

And showing your ignorance of the dietary guideline and the McDonalds menu. But at least your confident and certain in your ignorance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, it’s reply #1650

https://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,43212.msg9615522.html#msg9615522

You have to read the conversation from then on to realise the stupidity of CarbShark’s understanding of diet and nutrition.  He claimed that the glycaemic index of steak is high (it isn’t), changed it to the insulin index (again it isn’t):

https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/66/5/1264/4655967

[click on PDF for the full article]

Beef steak rates very highly for ‘area under the curve for insulin’/‘area under the curve for glucose’ [basically insulin index/a glycaemic index (not the glycaemic index)] in figure 4.  Beef steak elicits a much higher insulin response than it increases blood sugar.


Evidence that the dietary guidelines allow a person to have all their meals at MacDonalds?
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: lonely moa on September 07, 2019, 02:42:35 PM
A small aside, the new doco, "Fat a Documentary" has a bit to say on the therapeutic use of ketogenic diets for medical issues other than cancer; diabetes and epilepsy in particular. 
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: bachfiend on September 07, 2019, 03:31:11 PM
A small aside, the new doco, "Fat a Documentary" has a bit to say on the therapeutic use of ketogenic diets for medical issues other than cancer; diabetes and epilepsy in particular.

Well, the evidence that ketogenic diets are any good for any specific type of cancer is non-existent.  Ketogenic diets have been long accepted for refractory epilepsy, particularly in children (there’s good evidence that it works).  And I accept that it should be easier to manage diabetes with a low carbohydrate, in particular low sugar, diet.  Nutritional Kerosins with diabetes isn’t necessary.

So that’s the three conditions you’ve mentioned.  Any others?
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: CarbShark on September 07, 2019, 05:03:48 PM
Well, the evidence that ketogenic diets are any good for any specific type of cancer is non-existent.

That's not correct.

There is evidence that ketogenic diets are good for several specific types of cancer. The evidence is preliminary and not strong, but to say it's non-existent is wrong.

Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: bachfiend on September 07, 2019, 05:45:29 PM
Well, the evidence that ketogenic diets are any good for any specific type of cancer is non-existent.

That's not correct.

There is evidence that ketogenic diets are good for several specific types of cancer. The evidence is preliminary and not strong, but to say it's non-existent is wrong.

Which ‘several specific types of cancers?’  And what is the nature of the evidence?  Anecdotes?  Case reports?  Well designed clinical trials, with patients matched for stage on ketogenic or standard diet arms?

You haven’t responded to my comment that your (re)search (on the Internet) for information on diet and nutrient is very substandard, despite your claiming that your knowledge is better than mine, despite my 6 years of medical training at university and decades of clinical practice.

You still deny that you wrote that excess protein intake is shown by an increase in blood sugar?  If your blood sugar level doesn’t increase, then you’re not consuming excessive protein?  And that excessive protein is converted to glucose via gluconeogenesis, which is the reason why in ketogenic diets, protein intake is restricted to 20% of calories - 400 kcal on a 2000 kcal/day diet,  100 g/day, which is more than the recommended 0.75 g/kg body weight per day minimum).

You’re not as informed as you think.
Title: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: CarbShark on September 07, 2019, 06:04:18 PM
Well, the evidence that ketogenic diets are any good for any specific type of cancer is non-existent.

That's not correct.

There is evidence that ketogenic diets are good for several specific types of cancer. The evidence is preliminary and not strong, but to say it's non-existent is wrong.

Which ‘several specific types of cancers?’  And what is the nature of the evidence?  Anecdotes?  Case reports?  Well designed clinical trials, with patients matched for stage on ketogenic or standard diet arms?
I refer you to the links in the OP.
Quote

You haven’t responded to my comment that your (re)search (on the Internet) for information on diet and nutrient is very substandard, despite your claiming that your knowledge is better than mine, despite my 6 years of medical training at university and decades of clinical practice.

Because it’s not worthy of a response.


Quote
You still deny that you wrote that excess protein intake is shown by an increase in blood sugar? 

Never denied that. It was your inaccurate and incomplete description of what I said that I disputed.


Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: bachfiend on September 07, 2019, 06:22:53 PM
Well, the evidence that ketogenic diets are any good for any specific type of cancer is non-existent.

That's not correct.

There is evidence that ketogenic diets are good for several specific types of cancer. The evidence is preliminary and not strong, but to say it's non-existent is wrong.

Which ‘several specific types of cancers?’  And what is the nature of the evidence?  Anecdotes?  Case reports?  Well designed clinical trials, with patients matched for stage on ketogenic or standard diet arms?
I refer you to the links in the OP.
Quote

You haven’t responded to my comment that your (re)search (on the Internet) for information on diet and nutrient is very substandard, despite your claiming that your knowledge is better than mine, despite my 6 years of medical training at university and decades of clinical practice.

Because it’s not worthy of a response.


Quote
You still deny that you wrote that excess protein intake is shown by an increase in blood sugar? 

Never denied that. It was your inaccurate and incomplete description of what I said that I disputed.

So your evidence for the efficacy of ketogenic diets with specific cancers doesn’t even get to the level of anecdotes?  Just animal models, in vitro studies of cancer cells and studies showing that cancer patients can tolerate ketogenic diets?  Any studies showing that survival of cancer patients is increased on ketogenic diets?

How was my description of what you claimed about excessive protein intake inaccurate or incomplete?  For a start, you were confused about glycaemic score and insulin score, and still managed to get the insulin score of steak wrong, despite correcting yourself.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: CarbShark on September 07, 2019, 07:11:28 PM
Well, the evidence that ketogenic diets are any good for any specific type of cancer is non-existent.

That's not correct.

There is evidence that ketogenic diets are good for several specific types of cancer. The evidence is preliminary and not strong, but to say it's non-existent is wrong.

Which ‘several specific types of cancers?’  And what is the nature of the evidence?  Anecdotes?  Case reports?  Well designed clinical trials, with patients matched for stage on ketogenic or standard diet arms?
I refer you to the links in the OP.
Quote

You haven’t responded to my comment that your (re)search (on the Internet) for information on diet and nutrient is very substandard, despite your claiming that your knowledge is better than mine, despite my 6 years of medical training at university and decades of clinical practice.

Because it’s not worthy of a response.


Quote
You still deny that you wrote that excess protein intake is shown by an increase in blood sugar? 

Never denied that. It was your inaccurate and incomplete description of what I said that I disputed.

So your evidence for the efficacy of ketogenic diets with specific cancers doesn’t even get to the level of anecdotes?  Just animal models, in vitro studies of cancer cells and studies showing that cancer patients can tolerate ketogenic diets?  Any studies showing that survival of cancer patients is increased on ketogenic diets?


Read all the linked articles.

Again you you said the evidence was not existent. There is evidence. It exists. It’s preliminary and we need more evidence.

Quote
How was my description of what you claimed about excessive protein intake inaccurate or incomplete?  For a start, you were confused about glycaemic score and insulin score, and still managed to get the insulin score of steak wrong, despite correcting yourself.

I immediately corrected my error on those two indexes.

I never claimed that I could tell if someone was eating excess protein by BG levels. That Is a mischaracterization.

If you’re on a LCHF diet and your blood sugar rises inexplicably excess protein may be the cause, but there could also be other causes. Carb consumption; release of glycogen; the dawn effect.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: bachfiend on September 07, 2019, 07:29:48 PM
Well, the evidence that ketogenic diets are any good for any specific type of cancer is non-existent.

That's not correct.

There is evidence that ketogenic diets are good for several specific types of cancer. The evidence is preliminary and not strong, but to say it's non-existent is wrong.

Which ‘several specific types of cancers?’  And what is the nature of the evidence?  Anecdotes?  Case reports?  Well designed clinical trials, with patients matched for stage on ketogenic or standard diet arms?
I refer you to the links in the OP.
Quote

You haven’t responded to my comment that your (re)search (on the Internet) for information on diet and nutrient is very substandard, despite your claiming that your knowledge is better than mine, despite my 6 years of medical training at university and decades of clinical practice.

Because it’s not worthy of a response.


Quote
You still deny that you wrote that excess protein intake is shown by an increase in blood sugar? 

Never denied that. It was your inaccurate and incomplete description of what I said that I disputed.

So your evidence for the efficacy of ketogenic diets with specific cancers doesn’t even get to the level of anecdotes?  Just animal models, in vitro studies of cancer cells and studies showing that cancer patients can tolerate ketogenic diets?  Any studies showing that survival of cancer patients is increased on ketogenic diets?


Read all the linked articles.

Again you you said the evidence was not existent. There is evidence. It exists. It’s preliminary and we need more evidence.

Quote
How was my description of what you claimed about excessive protein intake inaccurate or incomplete?  For a start, you were confused about glycaemic score and insulin score, and still managed to get the insulin score of steak wrong, despite correcting yourself.

I immediately corrected my error on those two indexes.

I never claimed that I could tell if someone was eating excess protein by BG levels. That Is a mischaracterization.

If you’re on a LCHF diet and your blood sugar rises inexplicably excess protein may be the cause, but there could also be other causes. Carb consumption; release of glycogen; the dawn effect.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’ll quote you:

Excess protein consumption can be detected on a LC diet by a rise in blood glucose.  When that happens (assuming minimal carb consumption) your body has enough protein for replenishment; enough protein for any muscle building; enough protein for sufficient gluconeogenesis; and any additional protein is also converted to glucose, raising your blood sugar.  But, if your blood sugar remains moderate on a LCHF diet, then you are not consuming excess protein.’

But actually, any excess protein not needed for replenishing tissue proteins, forming new protein, or gluconeogenesis is burned, directly or indirectly.

Excessive protein intake is to be avoided because it may increase the risk of heart and renal failure, and in large amounts is poisonous since the metabolites of amino acids can be toxic.

You corrected yourself only after being challenged.  And you didn’t correct yourself regarding the insulin score of steak.  And you still didn’t correct your misconception that all excess protein is converted to glucose.  Reply #1678 is the important one:

https://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,43212.1665.html

And despite my noting that all excess protein can’t be converted to glucose.  Two amino acids are solely ketogenic, and 5 can be either ketogenic or glucogenic.

You’re showing all the signs of a troll with your quasi-religious obsession with your diet.  The evidence that ketogenic diets are beneficial isn’t ‘good.’  It’s piss poor.
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: CarbShark on September 07, 2019, 08:29:36 PM
You’re asking me to correct things where I was correct. Or the thing I’ve already corrected.

It seems that all you want to talk about is me. Get a life.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Ketogenic diets and cancer
Post by: bachfiend on September 07, 2019, 09:24:41 PM
You’re asking me to correct things where I was correct. Or the thing I’ve already corrected.

It seems that all you want to talk about is me. Get a life.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, you weren’t correct.  And you didn’t correct your claim that steak rates high in the insulin score.  It doesn’t.  It ranks very highly in ‘area under the curve for insulin’/‘area under the curve for glucose,’ which disproves your claim.

I bring it up because you’ve slandered (or libelled me) regarding my knowledge of diet and nutrition, claiming that you’re much more knowledgeable and informed, even claiming you’ve done a ton of research in diet and nutrition.  Which you obviously haven’t.  You’ve searched the Internet for items which you think, but actually don’t, confirm your quasi-religious belief that your diet is ‘best.’

You’re a troll, obsessed with nonsense.

If I’m obsessed with anything, it’s your persistent posting of pseudoscience on a very minor sceptical blog.  If you desist, so will I.  It’s a waste of my time.