Ketogenic diet for cancer...

Ketoliving said:

What are your sources' sources?

Hi Texas_wedge,

I'm just curious why you would avoid that particular diet? I've been on this particular diet (IE avoiding sugar and starch, increasing fat intake and equalizing protein) for quite a while and have experienced quite a few positive experiences, the least of which was a significant amount of weight loss. I've also been researching this to the extent and finding significant amount of studies (peer-reviewed) not stemming from a single source, on it's beneficial effects on mental metabolic disorders (Alzheimer's and Epilepsy), as well as Diabetes, Cancer, and Obesity. I've also spoken to a significant amount of people in various communities that have anecdotally shown this was the case.

For the record, this is my first post here. I found this brief thread through my research and decided I should put forward my 2 cents - especially in a forum community that hopes to assist people with or had cancer. I have a facebook page and am actually making a website on my own time to promote this particular way of living by virtue of all the good things I know it can provide people. If you want access to the actual studies - I've listed them all on my facebook page (www.facebook.com/ketoliving).

If you have any questions, reach out to me there (or comment here).

 

Thanks,

-Ketoliving

Keotliving,

Thanks.

Please provide a few examples of what kinds of food you eat following this diet...i.e, a list of what you ate on a few days or more. Curious to see. Thanks. 

Ketoliving said:

What are your sources' sources?

Hi Texas_wedge,

I'm just curious why you would avoid that particular diet? I've been on this particular diet (IE avoiding sugar and starch, increasing fat intake and equalizing protein) for quite a while and have experienced quite a few positive experiences, the least of which was a significant amount of weight loss. I've also been researching this to the extent and finding significant amount of studies (peer-reviewed) not stemming from a single source, on it's beneficial effects on mental metabolic disorders (Alzheimer's and Epilepsy), as well as Diabetes, Cancer, and Obesity. I've also spoken to a significant amount of people in various communities that have anecdotally shown this was the case.

For the record, this is my first post here. I found this brief thread through my research and decided I should put forward my 2 cents - especially in a forum community that hopes to assist people with or had cancer. I have a facebook page and am actually making a website on my own time to promote this particular way of living by virtue of all the good things I know it can provide people. If you want access to the actual studies - I've listed them all on my facebook page (www.facebook.com/ketoliving).

If you have any questions, reach out to me there (or comment here).

 

Thanks,

-Ketoliving

I'm afraid that I avoid Facebook so I won't see your references. Would it be possible for you to cite at least some of them here?

The reason I said I would avoid it is because it appears to contradict the advice of reputable serious scientists.

Can you please explain what "equalizing protein" means and why you would avoid starch and increase fat intake (relative to what baseline?).

I've just read your reply to adman's enquiry. I agree with the desirability of minimising exposure to undesirable chemicals, but for the rest of it I think it's almost complete nonsense.

Texas_wedge said:

Sources

I'm afraid that I avoid Facebook so I won't see your references. Would it be possible for you to cite at least some of them here?

The reason I said I would avoid it is because it appears to contradict the advice of reputable serious scientists.

Can you please explain what "equalizing protein" means and why you would avoid starch and increase fat intake (relative to what baseline?).

I've just read your reply to adman's enquiry. I agree with the desirability of minimising exposure to undesirable chemicals, but for the rest of it I think it's almost complete nonsense.

Hi TW,

Based on my research - most scientists that are considered 'popular' would have some sort of financial biased in mind. Keeping this in mind, I found the most unbiased sources and went straight to the peer reviewed studies - not just hearsay from scientists.

My description of my diet is relative to a hypocaloric diet that I was on in an attempt to lose weight for almost 2 years (IE Calorie restriction). Starch is a carbohydrate which (along with sugar), easily crosses your intestinal barrier and becomes processed by your body as glucose and also induces an insulin spike. This insulin spike is what causes your body to stop producing both leptin and ghrelin which is why after eating carbs - you will readily be hungry within about 2 hours after your last meal (that's the source of the modern thought of eating smaller but more frequent meals throughout the day). This insulin is largely what has been theorized and partially studied to be the cause of various metabolic diseases (Obesity and Diabetes) and the excess glucose prior to being converted into fat is what is thought to fuel various types of cancers. Even if you don't have a facebook account - you can still view all of the studies I've posted without signing in as I've made all the articles public.

Listed below are some of the links for both articles and studies concerning various things that I think are relevant to this forum:

http://www.emaxhealth.com/1506/deadly-brain-tumor-may-respond-specialized-diet

http://scienceblog.com/58381/what-turns-carby-treats-into-fat/

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/the-great-cholesterol-myth.html

http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/8/1/54

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23123763 (Links of Sat. Fat. & Stroke)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23125921 (High Carb vs. High Fat diets)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22673594 (Low Carb vs. Low Calorie)

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002822395001891 (Cancer studies w/ Ketogenic diets as far back as 1995)

http://rdfeinman.wordpress.com/2012/10/15/targeting-insulin-inhibition-as-a-metabolic-therapy-in-advanced-cancer/

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8479191 (Comprehensive study on links between heart disease and a high-fat diet - There is none.)

There's a bunch more on there if you care to look as well.

Cheers,

-Ketoliving

Ketoliving said:

Sources Provided

Hi TW,

Based on my research - most scientists that are considered 'popular' would have some sort of financial biased in mind. Keeping this in mind, I found the most unbiased sources and went straight to the peer reviewed studies - not just hearsay from scientists.

My description of my diet is relative to a hypocaloric diet that I was on in an attempt to lose weight for almost 2 years (IE Calorie restriction). Starch is a carbohydrate which (along with sugar), easily crosses your intestinal barrier and becomes processed by your body as glucose and also induces an insulin spike. This insulin spike is what causes your body to stop producing both leptin and ghrelin which is why after eating carbs - you will readily be hungry within about 2 hours after your last meal (that's the source of the modern thought of eating smaller but more frequent meals throughout the day). This insulin is largely what has been theorized and partially studied to be the cause of various metabolic diseases (Obesity and Diabetes) and the excess glucose prior to being converted into fat is what is thought to fuel various types of cancers. Even if you don't have a facebook account - you can still view all of the studies I've posted without signing in as I've made all the articles public.

Listed below are some of the links for both articles and studies concerning various things that I think are relevant to this forum:

http://www.emaxhealth.com/1506/deadly-brain-tumor-may-respond-specialized-diet

http://scienceblog.com/58381/what-turns-carby-treats-into-fat/

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/the-great-cholesterol-myth.html

http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/8/1/54

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23123763 (Links of Sat. Fat. & Stroke)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23125921 (High Carb vs. High Fat diets)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22673594 (Low Carb vs. Low Calorie)

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002822395001891 (Cancer studies w/ Ketogenic diets as far back as 1995)

http://rdfeinman.wordpress.com/2012/10/15/targeting-insulin-inhibition-as-a-metabolic-therapy-in-advanced-cancer/

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8479191 (Comprehensive study on links between heart disease and a high-fat diet - There is none.)

 

There's a bunch more on there if you care to look as well.

 

Cheers,

-Ketoliving

IKetoliving,

I'm with you on the power of a 'low carb' diet and losing weight fast.

I lost 60lbs 18 months ago. I've put 20 back on and am in process of losing it....down 7-10...it's harder this time due to my inability to be on the same higher protein/ low carb mix b/c of my kidney situation.

My recent GFR # - 78

Creatinine - 1.1

I've been advised that higher protein diets aren't the way to go with my condition, but believe me, I know how they work.

BTW,  complex carbs are not bad...certain fruits, whole grain bread in moderation.

Who knows.....

Texas_wedge said:

Sources

Thanks for those links.

I've now read all of the articles and I can't find anything in any of them that supports a ketogenic diet! If they represent the sort of material you base your beliefs on then I see nothing to dissuade me from the recommendations of highly regarded scientists who are of completely contrary opinion. I don't feel I need to look any further if that's the sort of support you are relying on.

I did, however, find the last item about high fat diet and CHD of interest and shall be looking out for intelligent responses to it by other researchers.  Do you know of any studies that endorse the finding?

Incidentally, are you an RCC patient?  From your pseudonym I gather you are a zealot for this particular type of diet and you refer only to your personal benefit in respect of your attempts to lose weight.  Did you come here to persuade us that the kind of diet you are advocating would be good for kidney cancer patients?  If so, you would need to provide us with at least a modicum of evidence and so far you haven't managed to show us any at all.

There is a conspectus of shifting scientific views on carbohydrate intake here:

http://atvb.ahajournals.org/content/26/9/1958.full.pdf+html

It's entitled  "The Changing Roles of Dietary Carbohydrates From Simple to Complex"   and has the imprimatur of the American Heart Association.  I'd be intrigued to hear your take on it.

Hi Texas_wedge,

I'm not entirely sure what your concept of a ketogenic diet is. Ketogenic diets are simply means to cut down carbohydrates, and increase fat intake. I'm not entirely sure what type of information you're looking for to 'dissuade' you from other opinions. Studies are not meant to 'dissuade' anyone, they're meant to provide insights into the new frontiers of whatever is being studied. I would have a hard time responding to that with respect to what recommendations or opinions that you are saying that are contrary to my own. That said, based on the tone of your first paragraph, you can find in any sort of information whatever type of conclusions you wish to pull from any study if you're approaching them with your own personal biases.

Also, if you consistently rely on 'expert opinion' instead of being able to educate yourself in how to read unbiased evidence that 'experts' get their support from - then I can safely say that you will never free yourself from biased information. Experts get to where they are in large part due to the fiscal draw of their own positions, and end up making money supporting their own ideologies. They easily disregard unbiased information that go against their core beliefs, and easily attach themselves to those who may or may not be biased to those that agree with their own views - similar to the approach you're taking with your commentary.

I would consider myself a zealot insofar as that I know this can benefit people - the question would be simply bias. I put that as my name as a full disclosure that I am for this particular diet. Do I make any money out of this? No. Have I published any books that would benefit me in any way? No. The experts you're touting do. To your point that I haven't provided a modicum of evidence is frankly insulting considering you have not provided any evidence at all to support your points except for the single study at the end of your commentary, and yet have the gall to say that I'm the one who has not provided any evidence and it's only you that choose to disregard the ones I've provided.

With regard to your single study that you've provided, here are my insights and opinions:

There have been 3 key historical impetuses that has created such a prevalence and therefore a perceived requirement of carbohydrates in the north american diet - starting off with the food shortages shortly after WW2, the Ancel Keyes studies sponsored by the USDA in 1969, and then the banning of low-carb labelling in 2004 in Canada due to a large financial lobby from the sugar and agricultural industries. You can research these individually but these are key things to keep in mind for the following.

My first comment to this would be a question of why you're quoting a single study published in 2006, which reads into the progression of understanding of knowledge stemming back from 1958 up until 2004. The conclusions and RECOMMENDATIONS from this study are based on information published from the late 90's to 2004. Since 2004 and the ban of low-carb labelling in Canada, a significant burst of research has been started and completed (including decade-long studies that were started in the late 90's as well) that have tried to isolate the key points of support that low carb does have practical and significant beneficial effects in human physiologies. Since then, the studies I've provided to you have all pointed to the links of various metabolic diseases - even the ones that were funded (and subsequently tried to be buried) by the sugar industry, the USDA, the American Heart Association (+ The Heart and Stroke Foundation in Canada), showed significant results towards the ill-health effects of carbohydrates in the diet.

So in large part, I don't care as much about what kind of imprimateur is on a study - that only leads me to bear in mind what kind of biases were set going into the studies. The sources I've quoted are largely from academic foundations (Cambridge, British Journal of Nutrition, John's Hopkins, etc.) as opposed to a singular organization who has a blatant bias at proving that their previous recommendations were not wrong. Since the studies that have recently been released, the USDA has since changed their stance on the food pyramid - cutting down recommendations on their 'My Plate' system, which I have no doubt within the next 2 decades, will continue to minimize the role of carbs in the human diet.

Sorry for the long rant, but I've encountered people that have such convictions based on their encounters with expert opinions (some even touting TV celebrities like the Doctors or Doctor OZ), without being able to comprehend where their information is coming from. Frankly if looking at unbiased academic studies isn't enough to make you think twice about your own personal convictions, I don't think anything will.

foxhd said:

proper diets

Of course there is always the exception to the rule. I tend to survive on pizza and beer diet. But never more than 7 days a week. I still contend that according to the Krebbs cycle, all food products are broken down into adp and atp for energy. Even Ben Franklin understood all things in moderation. Honestly, I don't want to change anything that I do since I've been a good responder to treatment. It's like the mediocre swimmer who never got into trouble until he learned to swim well. Then he drowned trying to swim the english channel.

Hey Foxhd,

The Krebs cycle is definitely a proven procedure, but that only happens once food has entered the blood stream. However the mechanism for food to be transported in the bloodstream is drastically different from Fat/Protein vs. anything else - IE Carbs, Drugs, Alcohol, etc. Fat and Protein stay in your intenstines until your body can provide enough bile/enzymes to break it down so that it can actually pass through in the right amounts in your bloodstream. Other chemical substances like the ones I listed above don't need this mechanism - and regardless of how much you intake, it will go directly into your bloodstream causing whatever impacts it has to your body.

In the case of carbs - this increase results in an insulin spike, which both leads to weight gain as well as arterial damage (which is the root cause of artherosclerosis - the cholesterol lining is your body trying to repair these microtears). This also leads, as is currently theorized, to be a ready source of energy for cancer cells - since your body can't block glucose once it's in your bloodstream - glucose hungry cells (tumors) readily eat them up. Fat and Protein on the other hand are controlled by your body in the amounts they enter your bloodstream - only giving you the energy that your body requires when it requires it - as glucose is only provided by your liver/kidneys through gluconeogensis, and is typically only enough to feed your body and not cancer cells.

Understanding the mechanisms of how this lifestyle works is the key as this isn't just a 'diet', it's a complete change of paradigms in the BS that we've been fed by people who make money from feeding you carbs and keeping you sick (most studies are funded by sugar or pharmaceutical companies that are in favour of carbs - and these are readily viewable by looking at the financial sources of each study or the financial backing of the researchers in the study). The 'All things in moderation' mantra doesn't hold sway - unless you believe carbohydrates are ESSENTIAL to life (which they're not - I have not eaten over 10-20g of carbs in over a year, most of which is fiber which your body doesn't digest anyways), then it's kind of like saying that heroin, cocaine, or whatever else is ok in moderation.

But that's just my 2 cents.

Cheers,

KetoLiving

Texas_wedge said:

Low carb 'lifestyles'

Our chance visitor from the world of obesity problems will probably never visit here again.  However, in case anyone in future hits upon this thread, it would be a great pity if his pronouncements appeared to be the last word on the topic.  Although his denouncement of high sugar intake (generally, refined carbohydrates) is certainly to be applauded, the rest of his diet recommendations are virtually the exact opposite of what should be the nutritional intake for just about everyone.

The diet he propounds would almost certainly shorten the life of most RCC sufferers, would be bad for those with cardiovascular problems, or arthritis and doubtless many other health problems. 

It ill becomes someone who has no understanding whatsoever of RCC to come to this forum and try to persuade RCC patients to adopt his crank diet which flies in the face of the advice of those who have infinitely better credentials, scientific knowledge and  relevant experience.  Rather than bother to rebut each of the unsubstantiable claims that have been made, I'll cut to the chase with this quote from Keith Block's book, arguably as good a source of sound advice for cancer patients as is currently available:

"Notice that the culprits here are refined carbohydrates. Just as with fats, there are good carbs and bad carbs, an important distinction that the recent fad for low-carb diets ignores. [My emphasis] Carbohydrates represent your most important source of energy and calories; they add bulk and satisfaction to your meals.  Most important for our purposes, they are a major part of traditional diets associated with low cancer rates and high cancer survival. "

I'm considering the Nutrisystem diet here in the US. I hear it's great for 1-2 month periods & 10-20 lbs. to lose.

question -  This diet is about 35 % protein @ 90-120 grams/ day. Is this too much protein intake with our type of condition? 

Thanks. 

Boleyn-Fitz said:

ketogenic diet and mTOR pathway

I started following a ketogenic diet to minimize the side effects of affinator, but I'm wondering whether it might be useful for other reasons. The diet was originally used in the 1920s as a treatment for epilepsy, and now researchers think it was effective because it inhibited the mTOR pathway. That's also how affinator works. If I weren't on affinator it would seem like the diet would help by inhibiting the pathway. I don't understand the biochemistry well enough to know if works when taking affinator--it might further inhibit the mTOR pathway on top of the affinator or it might duplicate the effects.

I followed (and continue to follow) a low carb/high fat diet while on Afinitor.  It is not quite ketogenic but close enough to get many of its benefits.

I agree that these kinds of diets may have the ability to inhibit the mTOR pathway and so may be very helpful.  But they are not substitutes.

caseyjmc said:

Nutritional Ketosis (ketogenic diet)

Prior to being RXd with a very rare and aggressive form of Extrapulmonary Small Cell Carcinoma Localized in Lymph Nodes, I was happily following a ketogenic diet, aka nutritional ketosis, aka LCHF (Low Carb, High Fat, & just enough Protein to meet my body's needs). Other than the cancer, I was in tip top shape regarding my heart, lipids, and activity level. I had been losing many lbs of fat during this time, so my weight was decent. LCHF did all that for me.

i was given four cycles of two different chemo drugs (Cisplatin and Etoposide), and simultaneously went through radiation. My side effects from all of it were so mild that they were almost non-existent. My Survivorship Nurse Practitioner said there was a good chance that the keto diet made that possible. After my treatment was completed, I learned that the cancerous lump that formed in my left axillary lymph nodes had disappeared at least a week before treatment ended. Both my medical and radiation oncologists were amazed at the way the chemo just melted the tumor away, even after the first cycle.

Some of the people studying the ketogenic diet with their cancer patients said that they get their patients on the diet before starting chemo. The reason: the keto diet turns our bodies into using ketones for energy, and not carbs (glucose). But cancer cells cannot digest ketones, and without carbs/glucose, these cells are weakened. Cancer eats sugar to survive and thrive. Since I was already burning ketones and not glucose before I started my chemo, it is very possible that when the chemo (loaded with yummy cancer-loving glucose) was introduced into my system, the cancer cells ravenously gorged on the chemo and died off quickly.

I finished with treatment before last Thanksgiving and am happily back on keto to finish losing my excess weight. Without realizing it, I may have been a keto diet/cancer success story.

That is a wonderful testimonial Casey.  Thank you for sharing it.