As someone whose beloved uncle, my dad growing up, is suffering from dementia, please research this.
There is no cure for dementia but there is prevention and this can even reverse if caught early enough.
You literally could not pay enough to eat anything other than whole foods Low Carb High Fat. No way. Not for all the money in the world, literally. My uncle is only 22 years older than me and I am sure dementia would have been my early onset future if I had not adopted LCHF.
The weight is the least of it. I am so vital, strong and thriving. And research just piles on it is the best at preventing all the most common 'Western' diseases.
So do your body and brain a favor, research it, and I hope people implement it.
I, too, find it hard to believe our bodies were designed to just fail, yet conventional medicine flat out refuses to view food as ANY cause of disease. Honestly, pre-diabetics aren't told to avoid carbs, really!?! My husband had fasting BS over 110 yet his dr. didn't blink an eye or say a word. Am I the only one who sees a problem with this?!?
No, not the only one. It is shameful. 100 years ago if you got diabetes they put you on low carb. That is right. There was and is a cure. But the American Diabetes Association was set up to sell insulin and keep people diabetic.
It happens everywhere in medicine. I just finished a book called Tripping Over the Truth on cancer. It lays out compelling evidence cancer is a metabolic disease not genetic or mutation based.
Effective treatments are ketosis, hyperbaric oxygen, and a chemical 3BP. Why haven't you heard of 3BP? An entire cancer treatment would cost about $150 in 3BP. Not a $100,000 and most likely won't work like current drugs. Must read book if cancer is a concern.
No, cancer is a mutation disease that occurs through the accumulation of genetic errors. Period. Virtually all cancers become more common with age. So good luck low-carbing out of that one unless the diet kills you early. The controversy is whether the quality of a diet rather than the quantity can accelerate the process by which a cell becomes cancerous through keeping cells alive and multiplying. That excess weight is accompanied by an elevated risk of cancer is also a given.
Agreed that what's good for the heart is good for the brain though. But specifically Omega 3s. Not saturated (God forbid) fats. Get off the cheese and on the fish!
Yes Professor Ian. I am sure you read Tripping Over the Truth and Thomas Seyfried's book Cancer as a Metabolic disease and then came to your conclusion.
People may think I am close minded but remember I have my health because I do virtually everything OPPOSITE of conventional wisdom. Just to be different or contrary? Heck no, that would be idiotic.
But I read and research. Share your opinion on this AFTER reading Why many doctors now think cancer is a metabolic disease. Read books on it. Then if you disagree, awesome, fine, we can discuss why.
Here is a good overview of the 'cancer as a metabolic disease' issue and the fact that they align themselves with Dr. Mercola isn't a good thing.. But it talks about the heart of the issue.
Again, read the books or book. I understand one is a more technical expensive book. Read Tripping Over the Truth. Check the sources then decide. Or go through life however you wish.
Have you ever heard of vested interests? There are 100s of billions of dollars people make off of NOT curing cancer. Also people have egos and grants and labs all invested in the genetic mutation theory whether it makes progress or not or helps people or not.
I feel empowered to help any friend or loved one now. My vested interest is the truth. And I will read both sides then come to the conclusion. Tripping over the truth is a very easy read, very well written. Very enjoyable.
The problem is Nellie that article is written by the vested interests. And it may indeed be correct. Just because they are vested does not necessarily mean they are wrong. Heck maybe wheat, corn, and soy are awesome and I am just totally wrong about nutrition. That is a possibility.
But you are referencing something written by people who have a vested interest in saying the metabolic theory is wrong. It is a completely circular argument. It gets you absolutely no where.
Read Tripping Over the Truth. Mull over the arguments. Especially studies done all the way back in the 1970s ignored by the vested interests. They took tumor cells. Took the nucleus out and put it into healthy cells with healthy cytoplasm. This is where the mitochondria are. Those cells then did NOT develop cancer.
Then they took perfectly healthy cells with healthy nucleus no genetic mutations for cancer. Combined that with the cytoplasm from cancer tumor cells and those cells all got cancer. This is exactly what the metabolic theory would predict.
So people can keep spinning in circles if they wish. Or read the material from the people advocating the metabolic theory then decide. You decided it was wrong by reading a paper by people who decided it was wrong. Circles, circles, circles, nothing more than circles. You need to read the pro metabolic theory from the people pro metabolic. Then you can say it is hogwash. But all you are doing now is going in circles.
Last edited by PrimalLarry; 01-14-2015 at 09:09 AM.
I would have to go find the link again, I read a study and it seems very interesting but it was looking at the metabolic effects of cancer and how to cure it given that data. Metabolic effects of cancer are being looked at and have been looked at for a while, it isn't new or hidden.
You think Sciencebasedmedicine.org has a vested interested in saying that saying metabolic theory is wrong? They didn't say that, they said cancer is complex. If you read the article, it is pretty good and covers a lot of the issues and actually cites multiple sources.
You have to also realize that there is a whole 'anti science' movement that is also making billions off of 'fighting big business/big pharma' and the like. Dr. Mercola makes millions by living off the fear of people who think that modern medicine is out to get them. Usually the way these people work is by taking a sprinkling of science and twisting it.
If you read the Science Based Medicine article, it is really good, gives lots of references and provides further details. Cancer obviously isn't black or white but diseases rarely are and different forms of cancer work in different ways.
Nellie you are reading stuff from people who have already discounted the metabolic theory of cancer. They may be right but it is unbalanced. I pretty much got they had totally discounted it and pretty strongly. And very dismissive of Dr. Seyfried.
Here is a pro-metabolic theory website. At least read their first page where they lay out their evidence. I won't say the evidence, but their evidence as they see it.
This is just the intro:
Something is Very Wrong
For over 50 years researchers have been hunting down, cataloging, and developing drugs to combat the genetic mutations thought to cause cancer – with remarkably little success. Enormous amounts of time and money have been spent on cancer research yet contradictions, confusion, and frustration continue to dominate the landscape of the field.
Emerging evidence is beginning to put into question the very theory of the origin of cancer. A handful of experts’ are pounding the table proclaiming the whole cancer research community needs to step back and reconsider what was once unquestionable – that cancer originates from mutations to nuclear DNA. The evidence suggests, they say, cancer starts when cells are unable to produce energy with oxygen, and that mutations to DNA occur after the disease has already began. Others, still convinced cancer is a genetic disease, are acknowledging something is amiss, and maybe there is more to the metabolic defects found in tumor cells than previously thought.
Make no mistake— the origin of cancer is far from settled.
But if you read the article... They aren't discounting it. That isn't what science is about. It isn't clinging to one theory, ignoring any contrary evidence or questions. It is looking at related studies, using those to form new studies and learn new information. The article does bring into question the swooping statements made and brings up data from the same studies that those books are using as evidence.
I know a lot of people would like to believe medicine has failed us and would like to believe conspiracy theories but science has provided us with insight but health is complicated and human health isn't always easy to study because you can't throw humans in a lab for 100 years. We are able to study quite a bit though but it is in pieces and those pieces may fit together or may just require further study.
It's not entirely dismissive, but fairly so IMO. Also weak straw-man arguments. Lots of people esteem Dr. Mercola a lot. But stick to the arguments, don't sidetrack. Dr. Seyfried might esteem him a lot as well. It is strictly opinion he is a 'quack'. There was no need for that in the article AT ALL.
I love science, I love many scientists. I wanted to be the next Darwin growing up. Scientists were my heroes. But I am well aware that it is now the scientific-industrial complex. Many, MANY things are being done now not for advancement of science, for helping people, for helping the public, for helping nature.
It is just sadly the nature of the beast now. Vested interests are very powerful and they work for them. And they have a MASSIVE impact on 'science' now. This is not a conspiracy theory at all. BUT if you don't understand that you will just spin in circles trying to figure out anything.
You have to have that understanding as it is part of the process to get anywhere with your understanding and research. It isn't everything but it is part of the scientific process now unfortunately.
BTW I esteem Dr. Mercola very highly. Yes he is a businessman and I am aware of that. I take that into account when reviewing his information. I, in fact, have not bought anything from him or anything he has stated as beneficial. But I have found many of his postings very beneficial. I am sure I take some supplements he agrees with but it was not from his posts.
Many of the people criticizing him get sizable amount of money from industry. But they like to think of themselves as totally not influenced.
But if you are truly interested in this then invest some time into reading Tripping Over the Truth, then we can discuss the metabolic theory of cancer. BTW it spends most of the book discussing the SMT theory of cancer, or genetic theory.
Or at least read the whole page of the above website, they do a good summary.
LCHF best for brain health
