 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / February 2007Atkins and Cancer
I have been on the Atkins diet since 1999. I have never gone off this diet. I have waivered between intake and maintenance, but have never gone off this diet for even a day. So, I had an interesting thought yesterday after I just had a colonoscopy. First, nine years ago I had a colonoscopy where they found and excised some benign polyps. I also had growths on my body that where like 1 inch strings of skin. Something had happened to the cells on my skin and was causing it to grow abnormally. A year after starting Atkins, these skin growths all disappeared. My latest colonoscopy revealed no polyps whatever. Now, my father had these same strings of skin growing on his body at my age. He first got prostate cancer and it was cured. He then got glioblastoma in his brain and it killed him. I suspect but of course cannot prove that these strings of skin may indicate that the body has become susceptible to abnormal cell growth. I have formed a very tentative hypothesis that an extremely low carb diet reduces the incidence of cancer. My wife calls my adherence to the diet as fanatical. I know it is not fanatical, I simply never cheat because I know that if I did, I would not be able to stop cheating. My health improved remarkably after starting Atkins. I never wanted that effect to go away. I am 64 yers old. Are there any other oldsters out there who have noticed a similar effect from the low carb diet? BTW, my last total cholesterol reading was 105 taken 3 months ago. > I have been on the Atkins diet since 1999. I have never gone off this > diet. [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > total > cholesterol reading was 105 taken 3 months ago. Are you sure that's the total cholesterol reading? That's very low. I think that many cancers (and diseases in general) have a sugar/insulin mechanism to them.  SignatureBob in CT > Are you sure that's the total cholesterol reading? That's very low. I > think that many cancers (and diseases in general) have a sugar/insulin > mechanism to them. Yes that reading is correct. I am taking 40 mg Zocor per day and this was taken while I was on one of my "intake" spells. My cholesterol drops about 20 points when I give up carbs entirely. On my maintenance diet (I should say that my maintenance diet means a cap of 60 carbs per day) my cholersterol rises to about 125. >> Are you sure that's the total cholesterol reading? That's very low. I >> think that many cancers (and diseases in general) have a sugar/insulin [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > say that my maintenance diet means a cap of 60 carbs per day) my > cholersterol rises to about 125. You might want to reconsider taking Zocor. Low cholesterol values have been indicated with a higher incidence of dying early. SignatureBob in CT Cholesterol that is too low can also be a problem, it doesn't sound like you should be taking Zocor. | Yes that reading is correct. I am taking 40 mg Zocor per day and this | was taken while I was on one of my "intake" spells. My cholesterol | drops about 20 points when I give up carbs entirely. On my | maintenance diet (I should say that my maintenance diet means a cap | of 60 carbs per day) my cholersterol rises to about 125. > Cholesterol that is too low can also be a problem, it doesn't sound like > you > should be taking Zocor. There was a large study published about 4 years ago. It showed that using large doses of statins and profoundly lowering lipids would actually improve blood flow in arteries constricted by plaque. I started lowering my lipids at this time. Over the years this has improved my blood flow to my heart. I did have "two flight" eschemia. Two flight, meaning going up two flights of stairs. I can no dash up 2 flights of stairs in my home without suffering exertional angina. I consider this success. I wonder what the mechanism is that kills you early with your lipids being too low. I will have to do some internet research on this subject. If I see there is a problem I will then have to decide how high to raise my lipids. The average monkey in the wild has a total cholesterol count of 100. I figured that was a good target. Thanks for the reply and advice. |> Cholesterol that is too low can also be a problem, it doesn't sound like |> you [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] |large doses of statins and profoundly lowering lipids would actually improve |blood flow in arteries constricted by plaque. Even the drug companies admit that there is absolutely no correlation between taking statins and lower incidence of heart attack or stroke. Statins = the single biggest moneymaking scam ever perpetrated on the public. PT Barnum would be proud.- Well, as I said, seriously lowering my total cholesteral, increasing my hdl, has dramatically improved my exertional angina. Looking at the charts for life span and lipid readings, I would say it might be time to bring my total reading up to the 150 mark now that the artery is so much better. It is hard to understand how very low cholesterol readings are related to pneumonia and suicide. It makes no sense to me. However, I will have accept the numbers and raise my lipids so that I am in the lowest risk area. There have been no long term studies released that show if continued very low chol will keep widening arteries. BTW have you ever looked at the amazing correlation between long term statin use and alzheimers. Long term use of statins = 80 per cent reduction in chance of acquiring alzheimers. > |> Cholesterol that is too low can also be a problem, it doesn't sound > like [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Statins = the single biggest moneymaking scam ever perpetrated on the > public. PT Barnum would be proud.- > It is hard to understand how very low cholesterol readings are > related to pneumonia and suicide. It makes no sense to me. I don't have any theories, but it wouldn't be that surprising, since cholesterol is involved in more body processes than heart health. For example, exposure to sunlight causes the conversion of cholesterol to vitamin D to take place in your skin. So if you're on a typically modern nutrient-poor diet in the first place, *and* you avoid the sun out of fear of skin cancer, *and* you keep your cholesterol levels very low, it seems likely that you'd be low in vitamin D, which could have further effects not easily related to your cholesterol levels. There could be many such chain reactions. (When I first heard about this cholesterol + sunlight = D process, I wondered if the cholesterol fear-mongers would become tanning fans. Nope, and I should have known better. The sun is free, after all, and can't be patented like a new statin drug. SignatureAaron -- 285/235/200 -- http://aaron.baugher.biz/ "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." > Well, as I said, seriously lowering my total cholesteral, increasing my > hdl, [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > use and alzheimers. Long term use of statins = 80 per cent reduction in > chance of acquiring alzheimers. What studies? SignatureBob in CT Here is one study I found. There are more. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1172124 I am still planning to speak with my physician about raising my cholesterol level. I am getting concerned about the long term effects of a total chol of 105. My searches on the web always come up with negative outcomes for a number this low. I am thinking about getting one of those home test kits for lipids. That way I could keep my lipids on track the way people with type 2 diabetes do with their BG. > Well, as I said, seriously lowering my total cholesteral, increasing my > hdl, [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > use and alzheimers. Long term use of statins = 80 per cent reduction in > chance of acquiring alzheimers. What studies? SignatureBob in CT The problem with these studies is the same problem with studies of cholesterol and heart disease -- the studies are paid for by the very persons (i.e., drug companies) who will benefit from a positive outcome. Now, that doesn't necessarily meant that the study is invalid, but it does imply some potential bias. I read the linked item, but there's not enough data to determine really what the conclusion was or what the method was. > Here is one study I found. There are more. > http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1172124 [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > What studies? SignatureBob in CT "Bob in CT"The problem with these studies is the same problem with studies of cholesterol and heart disease -- the studies are paid for by the very persons (i.e., drug companies) who will benefit from a positive outcome. Now, that doesn't necessarily meant that the study is invalid, but it does imply some potential bias. I have heard similar arguments before relating to ANY study. But, consider this: who else is interested enough to fund a study? A hiking shoe company is not going to fund a study on cholesterol. A maker of tennis racquets is not going to put up money to study cholesterol.... Unless you are arguing for government funding of ALL studies. Is that what you are arguing? It has become fashionable to find out who gave the money for the study--any study--and then denigrate the findings simply because of the funding connection. That's unfortunate. These colleges or labs doing the study are probably taking the utmost care to avoid bias. After all, wouldn't you if your reputation depended upon how the study was set up (not the outcome--the parameters of the study itself). You wouldn't want the "anti" people to point and say "Well, Yale is at fault; they were dupes of the drug company!" or somesuch. Once, I was at a friend's house when the GAO report about the deficit came on the news. The reporter said that the GAO released a statement saying that the US deficit was at its highest point in history, adjusted for inflation. I said to my friend: "You see what President Bush has done with his policies?" and she replied, "Oh, that was the "Democrat" TV station---if I turned the channel, the "Republican" station would say just the opposite!" I was left to muttering, "But it's the Government's office that reported this!" and she said, "It doesn't matter--they're biased against George Bush!" Pat in TX (my friend lives in Oklahoma) > "Bob in CT"The problem with these studies is the same problem with studies > of [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > this!" and she said, "It doesn't matter--they're biased against George > Bush!" Excellent point! > Here is one study I found. There are more. > http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1172124 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > lipids. That way I could keep my lipids on track the way people with type 2 > diabetes do with their BG. One of the serious consequences of low total and/or LDL cholesterol is the body's inability to produce adequate adrenal hormones without it. Adrenal hormones are immunoprotective and save our lives under stressful conditions. Susan Thank you all for your thoughts. I am truly convinced I must do something about my chol. I got a flu bug about ten days ago and now I have been dealing with pneumonia like symptoms for three days. I think I am getting the message. My fever finally broke today about 10 am. I have a terrible headache right now and I tried to reach my physician. However, he is off today. I am lucky that my wife is here to care for me. I hope to get reach my doctor tomorrow. My doctor had recently congratulated me for having the best lipid panel he had ever seen. low ldl, triglycerides. Well, there is obviously a limit to what we might call success in the lipid department. If we look at that number the way most people do, true success would be when we have a total chol of 0. I think our physicians need to let people know what a truly healthy lipid panel should look like. The lower is better mantra is dangerous. > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Susan > Thank you all for your thoughts. I am truly convinced I must do something > about my chol. I got a flu bug about ten days ago and now I have been [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > healthy lipid panel should look like. The lower is better mantra is > dangerous. Good luck. Glad to see that you have enough of an open mind to allow other ideas to get in there. Jim My hubby had colon cancer many years ago. He is checked quite often, and since the surgery, he has never had polyps again. However, he does not, and never has low carbed, so dunno. Are you talking about skin tags for the growths? Cheri B29 wrote in message >First, nine years ago I had a colonoscopy where they found and excised some >benign polyps. I also had growths on my body that where like 1 inch strings >of skin. Something had happened to the cells on my skin and was causing it >to grow abnormally. > My hubby had colon cancer many years ago. He is checked quite often, and > since the surgery, he has never had polyps again. However, he does not, > and never has low carbed, so dunno. Are you talking about skin tags for > the growths? > > Cheri I don't know what skin tags are Cheri. It sounds like maybe they are what I had. I just read some internet defintions and it sounds like they are what I had. Like I said, they all disappeared after starting Atkins. They're really common in the neck area as we get older. We're close to the same age. I'm soon to be 61, and now that you mention it I haven't had a skin tag in a really long time either, but dunno if it has anything to do with LC or not. The couple of things that I do know for sure about LC, is that LC takes away heartburn in most cases, it makes me feel better (more energetic and not feeling slugged out) and it keeps my diabetic numbers in fairly good shape. I'm sticking with it, but unlike you, I do have a slip now and then. Take care. Cheri B29 wrote in message ... >I don't know what skin tags are Cheri. It sounds like maybe they are what I >had. I just read some internet defintions and it sounds like they are what I >had. Like I said, they all disappeared after starting Atkins. : They're really common in the neck area as we get older. We're close to : the same age. I'm soon to be 61, and now that you mention it I haven't [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] : : Cheri I can tell you that skin tags are caused mainly from high insulin resistance. My daughter has them on her neck from the PCOS. If you google PCOS and Insulin Resistance, you'll get lots of refs to skin tags. HTH. rk : B29 wrote in message ... : [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] : what I : >had. Like I said, they all disappeared after starting Atkins. > They're really common in the neck area as we get older. We're close to > the same age. I'm soon to be 61, and now that you mention it I haven't [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > my diabetic numbers in fairly good shape. I'm sticking with it, but > unlike you, I do have a slip now and then. Take care. I used to get a lot of them years ago, but they stopped as soon as I switched to low carb. They're generally considered a marker for insulin resistance. Susan I'm not surprised. I have noticed that I don't have them anymore, and have been LC for a long time, though I never did equate LC with the disappearance of them until reading the posts the past couple of days. Cheri >I used to get a lot of them years ago, but they stopped as soon as I >switched to low carb. They're generally considered a marker for insulin >resistance. > >Susan > I have formed a very tentative hypothesis that an extremely low carb diet > reduces the incidence of cancer. My wife calls my adherence to the diet as > fanatical. I know it is not fanatical, I simply never cheat because I know > that if I did, I would not be able to stop cheating. Something odd about this statement of yours. The Atkins diet is not "an extremely low carb diet." Besides, you are making the leap that carbohydrates cause cancer. I haven't seen that theory anywhere else. It reminds me of the time I took my 3 year old to go over a bridge. He clapped his hands and the bridge raised to allow a sailboat to go under it. After that, he was sure that clapping his hands caused bridges to elevate.... Pat in TX > Something odd about this statement of yours. The Atkins diet is not "an > extremely low carb diet." They way I regulate my diet is extremely low carb. I cap my maintenance diet at 60 carbs per day and try to stay at zero for my "intake" periods. Unfortunately, that is what it takes for me to maintain a normal weight. You will note Pat, that I said "very tentative theory". I hope you realize that there are no studies to connect type 2 diabetes and lifetime carbohydrate intake. Any large study would be prohibitively expensive or just plain impossible. However, if you think just a little about the way we metabolize carbohydrates, you would have to be a sugar company executive to deny any connection between a high lifetime intake of carbohydrates and type 2. The lack of studies in this area paralyzes dieticians from making any connections. I am going to keep clapping my hands. > Besides, you are making the leap that carbohydrates cause cancer. I > haven't seen that theory anywhere else. It reminds me of the time I took [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Pat in TX > They way I regulate my diet is extremely low carb. I cap my maintenance > diet at 60 carbs per day and try to stay at zero for my "intake" periods. > Unfortunately, that is what it takes for me to maintain a normal weight. What is an "intake period"? > You will note Pat, that I said "very tentative theory". I hope you realize > that there are no studies to connect type 2 diabetes and lifetime [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > executive to deny any connection between a high lifetime intake of > carbohydrates and type 2. Sorry, this is called trying to prove a negative. Why don't you look into populations that are largely vegetarian, i.e., Seventh Day Adventists and others, and see if their history shows any larger than usual amount of cancers? You see, I think that if there were a positive connect between carbohydrtes and cancer, some Oncologist researcher would have had a "eureka!" moment long before now.... > The lack of studies in this area paralyzes dieticians from making any > connections. No, they aren't "paralyzed." Studies of vegetarian and vegan communities and even other populations that are largely vegetarian such as people in India, haven't show an increase in cancer. Pat in TX >> They way I regulate my diet is extremely low carb. I cap my maintenance >> diet at 60 carbs per day and try to stay at zero for my "intake" periods. >> Unfortunately, that is what it takes for me to maintain a normal weight. > > What is an "intake period"? An intake period is for me a few months when I lower my carb intake to 10 or below. >> You will note Pat, that I said "very tentative theory". I hope you >> realize that there are no studies to connect type 2 diabetes and lifetime [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > carbohydrtes and cancer, some Oncologist researcher would have had a > "eureka!" moment long before now.... I personally think that a vegetarian diet is a good one. But you made a leap when you were thinking that vegetarian diets are most likely high carbohydrate diets. Also, lets make a distinction between simple, complex, and very complex carbohydrates. I don't eat simple or complex carbohydrates. That means I don't eat grains of any type or fruit. >> The lack of studies in this area paralyzes dieticians from making any >> connections. > > No, they aren't "paralyzed." Studies of vegetarian and vegan communities > and even other populations that are largely vegetarian such as people in > India, haven't show an increase in cancer. Of course not, they don't eat huge amounts of simple carbohydrates. Americans do! When Americans follow a low fat diet, those calories are replaced almost entirely with simple carbohydrates. I believe it is simple carbohydrates that do the most damage in our diet. So, I avoid them completely. I am happy with my diet. My wife makes me pancakes in the morning. These pancakes are made with cream, eggs, and protein powder. I drown them in Davinci maple syrup. It is an easy diet to follow if you have a partner who likes to cook and makes your food without carbohydrates. She even invented carb free bread for us. I love sandwiches. Again, I think the Pritikin diet and vegetarian diets are good. They are just not something I have the will power to follow for the rest of my life. I like eating dead animals. > I have been on the Atkins diet since 1999. I have never gone off this diet. > I have waivered between intake and maintenance, but have never gone off this [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > who have noticed a similar effect from the low carb diet? BTW, my last total > cholesterol reading was 105 taken 3 months ago. It's not a new or unsupported theory; just do a Medline search of "hyerinsulinemia AND colon cancer." Then do the same for prostate, breast, ovarian, pancreatic... Susan > It's not a new or unsupported theory; just do a Medline search of > "hyerinsulinemia AND colon cancer." Then do the same for prostate, > breast, ovarian, pancreatic... > > Susan Wow, Susan, I just did that. So much for "my theory". It appears to be widely accepted already. It never occurred to me that anyone had done a study on this. I just figured I was thinking this up on my own. I guess I will do a search before I present what I thought was my original idea again. The guy who likened this theory to clapping your hands for the bridge to open had not done a search either. He would have realized that it has already gained wide acceptance. Well, I guess this is yet another reason to stay low carb. >> It's not a new or unsupported theory; just do a Medline search of >> "hyerinsulinemia AND colon cancer." Then do the same for prostate, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Well, I guess this is yet another reason to stay low carb. No, "hyperinsulemia" (I assume she mean hyper instead of hyer) is not the same as carbohydrates in general causing cancer. You are making a huge leap in logic. Pat in TX > No, "hyperinsulemia" (I assume she mean hyper instead of hyer) is not the > same as carbohydrates in general causing cancer. You are making a huge leap > in logic. The body responds to higher carb intake with higher insulin secretion. This may explain why the highest starch eaters in the Harvard nurses' study had the most breast cancer and the highest fat eaters the least. A confirmatory result was found in a study of Mexican women, years later. Susan >>It's not a new or unsupported theory; just do a Medline search of >>"hyerinsulinemia AND colon cancer." Then do the same for prostate, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Well, I guess this is yet another reason to stay low carb. Actually, it is really easy to invent or reinvent theories of subjects new to you. On the one hand, the positive side is that it shows you are capable of thinking. The other hand though is that it is a little embarrasing, for some, to realize that they hadn't taken the time to run the marvelous search engines on the internet to see if they were inventors or reinventors. Sometimes I forget to run the search engines myself. But, I am getting better. And, before retirement, did have valid original thoughts. But I was often unsettled to realize that some things had never been "invented" before - when they were so obviously needed and easy to find with the proper perspective. Keep at the dietary approach, and maybe keep us posted on how your personal results match with your latest discoveries of what has been published in hyperinsulinema. > Actually, it is really easy to invent or reinvent theories of subjects > new to you. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > personal results match with your latest discoveries of what has been > published in hyperinsulinema. I worked for 20 years at a medical school. I confided in a scientist there about a pet theory I had. I told him that I felt that random natural selection could not account for the speed with which some species have morphed. I said that I believed that there is coding in all living thing's dna that promotes productive adaptation to a changing environment. I told him that in 2003. He laughed and told me he came up with the very same theory in 1970. He could never publish or even confide his theory to fellow scientists. He was afraid of being branded a creationist and losing all his grants. There are no studies for this idea and I cannot imagine a study that could be done. I do wonder how many health professionals and scientists have had the very same thought and are afraid to speak. >>Actually, it is really easy to invent or reinvent theories of subjects >>new to you. [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > could be done. I do wonder how many health professionals and scientists have > had the very same thought and are afraid to speak. Punctuated equilibrium, I believe was the phrase that Jay Gould used in 1972 to describe a herky jerky form of evolution which could be environmentally responsive or that the significant genetic changes happened in spirts, rather in a steady drop by drop drip. Evolution is so hard to figure out because there are no quick and dirty definitive experiments you can do over a weekend or evne a couple of months. This environmental idea was just in the scientific news (www.sciencedaily.com, www.newscientist.com or www.eureka.com) in the last couple of weeks. Again. With more emphasis on taking note of environment (the laboratory environment and the associated variables such as cage size, density of animals, exercise equipment, ....) as a variable in certain forms of genetic research. In recent years, there have been discussions of other factors besides the genes for control of animal characteristics. For example, it has been known for many decades that identical twins very commonly have quite different personalities, but in theory have identical genes. Genes by themselves aren't the whole story. Genes, so I have read, can be turned on and off, in some cases, by outside influences. I've forgotten which biological entities were cited as being capable of determining biological characteristics besides genes. So, no matter how wonderful the genetic code, it ain't necessarily all of the story. But, it was the major focus for such a long time. I suppose you are aware that Darwin had no knowledge of genetics at the time of his major book. Mendel's work was published after the "Origin of Species" was published 1859. Mendel's paper was published in 1866 in Proceedings of the Natural History Society of Brunn: it had little impact and was cited about three times over the next thirty-five years. Genetics became a science a little after those 35 years. Stuff is changing as we learn more. Stuff is changing as the old guard retires or dies off, possibly equally as importantly as changing from learning more. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.