Press Pulse Metabolic Strategy

It is the weekend, and I am able to start reading all of your links. I really appreciate you posting them. 

Tru

peterz54 said:

skepticism is good

There are many in the research community who differ with Dr. Seyfried on the fundamental issue of what causes cancer.  One such person is Adrienne Scheck of Barrow Neurological Institute.  But she doesn't disagree about using metabolic therapies as an adjunct and has done research on this issues in her lab.  She gives a short informative talk here   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMOhFmY8S-Q  

Another is Eugine Fine    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xkfzd0ZvplQ

Oncologist Colin Champ has looked at evidence for diet and the lack of dietary knowledge in hs own field  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ot96y5-D_K0&t=5s

Oncologist Dawn Lemanne discusses low carb diet effects on cancer   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_diITmOeCM&t=1935s

Prof. Longo discusses fasting impact on metabolic pathways and inpact on cancer treatment    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4ame4E1rtE&t=12s    

The common thread, at least to me, is that the proposed dietary interventions (as adjuncts) appear to dial down some of the significant pathways which stimulate cancer growth  (mTOR for example), and some of them (fasting) seem to stimulate the immune system.  If one starts with the basics, with the pathways that affect cancer growth, you see that insulin is often involved as well as excess amino acids.   it's worth exploring non-toxic options (metabolic therapies) which are consistent with the basic biology even if the theoretical explanation, and the cause of the original cancer, is a subject of disagreement.     

Yes, more and bigger trials are needed, and trials as increasing.  Consolidating clinical experience in an organized way is also needed.   Cross talk among the researchers is picking up as well.    In the mean time I choose to keep all simple carbs out of my diet, eat moderate to low amount of protein, and do limited fasting and time-restriicted feeding, none of which an oncologist (or family dootor) can argue with if he or she knows anything about diet or the biology of aging,  which most don't.   Obviously, if a person is suffering from cancer catexia or excess weight loss due to some other reason then some of these options, like fasting, can be off the table.    

I only eat during certain times, so I guess I'm into that one already. Of course, I have seen no weight loss, until I started eating a little more on the healthier side. 

I have watched and read many of the articles you have posted. Allot of the 'talk' I don't understand, but I get the gist. There is allot of opposing information, and at the end of the day, one has to be attuned to their own physical, spiritual and emotional selves.  

I have just been diagnosed with Atherosclerosis, so I really do need to button down and get on a CONSISTANT healthy eating plan. 

Thanks again for all of your research and links. 

Tru

NewHere said:

Just Theory, They Did Not Test

 

Seems to be the same thing going around for awhile regarding ketogenic diets/sugars

Basically it is "well maybe if we figure this all out, this could work."

"The success of the press-pulse therapeutic strategy for the metabolic management of cancer will depend on optimization of the scheduling, dosing, and timing of the various diets, drugs, and procedures used in order to achieve maximum synergistic interactions (Fig. 2). Scheduling will involve the order in which the chosen pulses are delivered to the subject while under dietary therapy. Timing will determine when and for how long the presses and pulses are given (number/day,/week,/ month etc.). Dosing will identify the optimal drug dos- ages needed to kill tumor cells while preventing or min- imizing systemic toxicity. Scheduling for each of these variables can be adjusted for the age, sex, and general health status of the subject. The strategy should degrade tumor cell populations gradually to prevent tumor lysis syndrome, which could cause excessive toxicity. Tumor imaging procedures involving FDG-PET, magnetic reson- ance imaging (MRI), and computed tomography perfusion (CTP), as well as analysis of serum cancer biomarkers should be helpful in assessing therapeutic success. The goal of the press-pulse therapeutic strategy is to improve progression-free and overall survival from cancer without producing adverse effects from the treatment." 

Availability of data and material

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study. 

After seeing the above, I did the google thing and found this regarding Seyfried. It rang a bell.

https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/starving-cancer-pseudoscientific-nonsense/

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

Sort of ties it altogether

Here is a quote from the sckeptical raptor article"  " the Warburg hypothesis has been roundly debunked, "   This is simply not true.  I understand your skepticism of Dr. Seyfried, as he has made a tepid connection to Mercola, and so skepticism is warranted, but the research being done at Boston college is truly groundbreaking and exciting. 

Combining hyperbaric oxygen, and DON Glutamine suppressors with aggressive glucose dietary reduction has shown remarkable effects in many patients, and you are not considering the Standard of Care requirements that preclude using these therapies in the US before pounding the body with radiation and chemicals.  This also restricts trials that can be done in the US. 

A more rational approach to Dr. Seyfried's (and Dom D'Augustino's work) would be to work at understanding the failures of the nuclear genetic hunt for causation, look at the remarkable and clear effects of nutritional and specific cancer nutrient suppressing approaches in animal models, review the growing case report library of Press-Pulse patients, and recognize that new approaches sometimes bear fruit from old theories in the light of more recent discoveries.

It's OK to believe in advances that do not conform to the traditional mindset if those advances are based on sound and ongoing scientific research.  This therapy qualifies in that regard.