Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??

[JaredBond]

Well, well, that's the pillar of the low carb theory, isn't it?  Well, what if that's wrong?

I used to be low carb, and I'm here to try to dig anyone else out who has been sucked into it.  Low-carb is the conclusion of some seemingly really smart people-- Michael Eades and Gary Taubes for instance.  The research seems to all support it.  Archeology seems to support it.  So what's the deal?

Well, I don't have time to explain, but I highly recommend you check out www.180degreehealth.com.  I know we're all desperate here.  I have not found the answer to my health woes yet.  But I believe this low-carb thing can actually be harmful.  Matt Stone discusses in his free e-book why that is.

As for the archeology and anthropology supporting paleo, consider this: It is entirely plausible that humans have at least been eating various potato-like root vegetables and cooking them around the world since the dawn of time.  It's not that hard to believe that we naturally have eaten starch, as hominids probably got calories from whatever source they could.  There are plenty of observed hunter-gather tribes that have eaten up to 80% or so carbs and were in fabulous health.  (Those are the ones you don't hear about from low carb sources.)  Matt Stone gives these examples in his free ebook and blog.

The main thing that I have learned from all this is that we need to trust our feelings more.  Our body has feelings for a reason.  Please do not do restrictive dieting.  I even eat sugar again (which he doesn't recommend, but I do).  I'm taken away my acne by merely avoiding omega 6 and polyunsaturates in general, which does not require much willpower at all.

My best explanation for the ills of the world at this point are toxins (including unnatural PUFAs), and malnutrition (perhaps even caused by chronic undereating).

And also, I know there are some people out there, like Lex Rooker, or diabetics, who've found that low carb is the only thing that works for them.  Some people are not able to handle changing blood sugar levels, and are forced to do low carb.  But I believe as Matt Stone does that this is a crutch, and does not address the underlying problem.  My sympathies go to those people, because I don't have an answer for them; but I don't believe low carb is something that everyone should do because of their marginal success.

Discuss.

[goodsamaritan]

I  did not know I was suffering from hypo-glycemic episodes on a daily basis until I tried high fat - low carb.

I thought hypo-glycemic episodes were normal.
Normal when I grew up on SAD, on raw vegan, on fruitarian.

Now I'm sooo happy.  I don't get them anymore.

High fat, low carb has helped my 5 year old girl control her tooth decays.  Even if she eats mostly cooked.

Just like everything in life, it all depends on your point of view and stage in your life.

[goodsamaritan]

180DegreeHealth is about increasing dietary freedoms, and increasing food tolerances. The ideal
end goal for everyone is to be able to eat the greatest variety of foods, properly digest the
greatest variety of foods, properly metabolize the greatest variety of foods, and experience great
health with the absolute minimum number of dietary restrictions and limitations.

From the ebook you are advertising.

This is what my friend healer Vander Gaditano tries to do to his patients.  He manipulates them in all manners possible to raise them up from being almost dead, the usual stage 4 cancers.

But it all depends on the disease.

And even for healthy people, it depends on your goals in life.

Keep going at it Matt, I love your fighting research spirit.

[pioneer]

Yes and I encourage anyone on here to not just accept any authors information, to study and find what makes the most sense for you, the individual is the best route. On this forum and many other cooked paleo forums, we generate most of our premises from evolution. An no I'm not even talking about coming from monkeys or apes of that matter, of that I'm still skeptical. Im talking about an even simpler way of looking at it, evolution within a species, which is downright real and factual. I dont want to get into an evolution debate here, but the only validity of evolution from what I'm concerned is within a species. IDK if we came from apes (another species) or not, but there is pretty much only theories for it. I digress, anyway we paleo eaters believe that where our ancestors came from is generally the best diet, but some times it is impossible to know so we then experiment. The truth of the matter is, in nature, the closer one gets to the equator, the more carbhydrates one will consume. Now this is not true in all cases, Im speaking of tribes in general. The further from the equator, one is forced to eat considerable amounts of flesh and fat because of less edible plant life. Im tired of people talking like a certain diet is one size fits all, we are all different and need to realize that. It is quite possible that africans lived on a heavier plant based diet than europeans and Europeans ate a heavier animal based diet.

[Nation]

Well, well, that's the pillar of the low carb theory, isn't it?  Well, what if that's wrong?

I couldn't give a rat's ass about insulin, resistance and people's theories about it. We eat a diet high in meat because we feel better on it, and that diet happens to be low carb, eating low-carb was never the primary goal/focus.

[carnivore]

I couldn't give a rat's ass about insulin, resistance and people's theories about it. We eat a diet high in meat because we feel better on it, and that diet happens to be low carb, eating low-carb was never the primary goal/focus.

Not to mention that a high meat diet is...a high glucose diet, as the body converts the majority of amino acids into glucose...

[pioneer]

When amino acids are converted into glucose through gluconeogenesis, both insulin and glucagon increase, and glucagon balances the effects of insulin so you can't negatively increase insulin in gluconeogenesis. In fact, when gluconeogenesis occurs, a positive anabolic environment occurs. Insulin is the most anabolic hormone in the body, thats why all the bodybuilders are on it. However it is both anabolic towards muscle and fat so it can be a bad thing for fat storing (not that storing fat is always bad though). But when glucagon goes up and balances insulin, a great muscle building environment is given. I dont recommend this to everyone, I personally dont like to store glycogen because then I burn glucose instead of fat, but I know many who tried high protein diets before and exploded with muscle size and strength while staying lean, even better than the carbo loaders.

[pioneer]

As for the archeology and anthropology supporting paleo, consider this: It is entirely plausible that humans have at least been eating various potato-like root vegetables and cooking them around the world since the dawn of time.  It's not that hard to believe that we naturally have eaten starch, as hominids probably got calories from whatever source they could.  There are plenty of observed hunter-gather tribes that have eaten up to 80% or so carbs and were in fabulous health.  (Those are the ones you don't hear about from low carb sources.)  Matt Stone gives these examples in his free ebook and blog.

In my opinion, it doesnt even matter if we dont know whether we used fire or not because of this: We know by modern science that heating foods creates many toxins that are harmful to the body such as AGES, Acrylamides, Arsenic, and much more so that right there tells you to not cook food. Also, we know that heating foods destroys enzymes, bacteria, oxidises fat, and denatures protein all either harmful to the body, or renders nutrients un-utilizable. We know that the growth of cancer cannot cease or reverse without pancreatin and many other important enzymes found in raw food. We know that if one stops consuming sugar, cancer cannot grow at all because it needs the presence of glucose. What more modern scientific info do you need to understand that this RAW diet is the best either high or low carb.




 I'm taken away my acne by merely avoiding omega 6 and polyunsaturates in general, which does not require much willpower at all.

I agree that omega 6 are bad as science has confirmed that over 60% of plaque is oxidised vegetable oils (mostly omega 6 acids). Truth be told, cooking, sugar, and omega 6 are mostly the culprits.

[miles]

What sort of sugar are you talking about pioneer? Are you ZC?

[Paleo Donk]

I've read quite a bit of Matt Stone the past few months and skimmed through his free e-book. I haven't seen anyone else mention his name on this forum so there might not be a lot of discussion here.

I'll give you my overall view of him first - He's a good storyteller who isn't afraid make very bold statements that don't give you the full or accurate picture of what is really going on. I'll give him credit for experimenting with a large variety of ways to eat, but he unfairly bashes certain diets (low-carb being the main one). Very clearly there are multitudes of people (I have read literally hundreds of journals) that are having enormous success with low-carb and more importantly there are many indigenous cultures (masai, samburu, islanders of tokleau, inuits, nenet, mongolians, plains indians and many others) around the globe who have fared very well for thousands of years low-carbing.

His "solution" to all your problems is to raise your metabolism, which is similar to saying that you must keep breathing to keep you alive. Yes, increasing body temperature is important and this is a probably a good indicator of health, which has not been really discussed much by other paleo/low-carb heroes. I like that he has his own unique way of curing poor health, basically eat all the non-refined sugar, non-omega 6, non-fructose sources you want and make sure you eat any time you are thinking of food. Do this until your morning body temperature is above 98 degrees and weight has stabilized. During this time make sure you rest as much as possible - sleep well, get out in the sun, do not exercise. Many people have had success with this approach, though it is all very short term - just a few months. I think Stone himself has barely been eating this way for a year and even in this time frame he has experimented about.

I think his solution might have some merit and his long term diet doesn't really differ that much than paleo. Eat what you like but keep stay away from certain foods. No need to count fat or carbs. I think its a no brainer that a high calorie diet will increase body temperature. Your body is trying very hard to burn through all the excess calories and I'm not sure how much actual healing is taking place. It could be just another temporary solution to the problem. Even Matt's body temperature dropped the last few months though he gets away with this by saying he was eating lots of sugar and what not.

In the end, I think the overeating solution is merely temporary just like he claims those that have the carb honeymoon. Its the same thing happening here.

Also, he has disturbingly bad logical miscues that I see him repeat over and over again. One of his more famous lines of thought is that since human breast milk has quit a bit of carbs in it then humans are clearly meant to consume lots of carbs. The trouble with this is that carnivorous mammal milk also has a decent chunk of carbs in it but they consume nearly zero carbs once adults. Cows milk also has loads of fat but their diet of grass has no fat in it so clearly looking at breast milk as a indicator of macronutrient profile for adults is a mistake. I see errors of reasoning like this nearly all the time.

Now it seems I am down on Stone but this is not true. I really appreciate his alternate views and have somewhat tried out his high everything diet myself. Low-carb failed me as well and I think that there is much more behind the problem than just macronutrient ratios that cause those who initialy do well with low-carb to fail long term. Biliary insufficiency, mercury poisoning, other toxins and of course whether the food is cooked and from pastured sources can make huge differences and very few of the paleo crowd ever really touch these issues. Also, too much protein might be an issue.

Since this is a discussion forum, so you don't have to command people to discuss in the future.

[pioneer]

I personally am zero carb with some veggies sometimes, but I dont go around saying its right for everyone, it just works for me and many others. I was referring to glucose when I said cancer needs sugar to grow, and it is true, it was discovered by a cancer researcher in the 70's and many people dont know it. I cant remember the guy's name but I'll try to find it and let you guys know, maybe I'll start a new topic about it.

[NEUROSPORT]

High fat, low carb has helped my 5 year old girl control her tooth decays.

my grandma had her first tooth filling at age 33.  my friend is 30 years old and never had one, and he doesn't even brush his teeth.

i don't understand what is such a big deal about controlling tooth decay in a 5 year old.

[pioneer]

Brushing your teeth does not mean shit, and no animal was ever meant to brush their teeth. I do it not for whitening or health purposes, but to avoid slime, but I only use AV's toothpaste protocol not the store made toxic stuff which can actually give you decay. I think of it as a cycle where you use toothpaste/ eat sugar, get decay, go to the dentist, get a filling, use toothpaste/ eat sugar, get decay, got to the dentist, get a filling, and so on. Im not talking conspiracy theories here, but it definitally makes dentistry more $. You can brush your teeth all you want but if ur eating tons of sugar and shit food, your teeth will rot. It is all diet related, you can cure acne, tooth decay, etc.. all through diet.

[RawZi]

my grandma had her first tooth filling at age 33.  my friend is 30 years old and never had one, and he doesn't even brush his teeth.

i don't understand what is such a big deal about controlling tooth decay in a 5 year old.

    In the Philipines where gs is, people eat a lot of rice.  Eating grain all too often is causative in osteoporosity and tooth caries.  Also, I've known Philipinos IRL, and all too often well meaning loving relatives give the babies literal sugar water, just sugar and water, they call it juice.  Their teeth rot right out at two years old.  Of course he should be concerned about his daughter, wouldn't you if you lived in the Philipines and had a daughter?

    I have relatives in their nineties who've never had cavities.  They've eaten steaks almost their whole lives, thick and juicy every day.  They're not fat phobic like you are, how you recommend tons of fiber to absorb the fat.

    Why do you name your grandmother.  Why 30?  Are you younger with a cavity or two already?  What about insulin?  Any direct experience for you?  What does neurosport mean, head games?  Eat some brain, the quality fat will help function.  Early man did.  My parents did.

[JaredBond]

I couldn't give a rat's ass about insulin, resistance and people's theories about it. We eat a diet high in meat because we feel better on it, and that diet happens to be low carb, eating low-carb was never the primary goal/focus.

That's fair enough.  I recommend that if you feel good doing something, keep doing it.  I mainly posted this because there are people out there who are cornered into thinking this is the only healthy diet, because they've become afraid of insulin or blood sugar (both of which are only a problem when they are chronically elevated).

[JaredBond]

Not to mention that a high meat diet is...a high glucose diet, as the body converts the majority of amino acids into glucose...

cancer cannot grow at all because it needs the presence of glucose.

Looks like we have a conflict here..............

Also, you might not want to train the body to get its glucose from proteins, as it will more readily convert your lean body tissue to glucose when you're not eating.  So I've heard.

Somewhat related:  A high fructose diet could be considered a high fat diet, since the fructose is almost entirely converted to fat by the liver.

Thanks for the commentary everyone.

[pioneer]

That is somewhat true, as the fructose spikes insulin, the cells readily store fat. However, I do not believe that this is the same case with consuming dietary fat. The opposite is true, Insulin regulates fat metabolism, it is like a switch. When you consume carbohydrates, insulin increases a certain amount depending on the GI and Glycemic load of the carb. Then a certain amount energy is used from the carbohydrate, when there is excess enery, the energy is stored as fat and glycogen, then later on when we havent eaten for a while, the stored energy is used in the form fat, and in the form of glycogen through anerobic bursts. Without insulin we could not store fat because it is literally the regulator of fat. So the low fat theorists actually have their information reversed, but I digress. When I said that cancer needs sugar to grow, I literally meant it, modern science has ignored a mid 1900 researcher (which I still need to find again and tell you guys) who won a nobel prize for figuring out that without sugar in the body cancer cannot manifest. This is because cancer grows only in an anerobic (without oxygen) environment. In an oxygen environment cancer cells die. It just so happens that glycogen is very anerobic, so it is used in the production of cancer.

As for the training the body to get it's glucose from proteins, I dont see anything wrong with that and never did. And its not "training" the body per say, its just another way to get glucose. Theories out there about ketoacidosis, harmful effects of ketones, and muscle wasting have only been made on whole cloth through speculation. part of the muscle wasting theory holds true and part doesnt. Heres why: picture I consume only 50g of protein today and no carbs, well hell Im gonna need some glucose so my body uses that consumed protein and since not enough glucose can come from 50g of protein, my body pulls from my protein stores and muscle wasting occurs. This is what all the "smart" nutrition gurus use to convince people to consume more grains and carbs. Here's the other side of the story they dont tell you. Lets say my friend Jonny eats 300g of protein that day. What happens is protein is used for repair, hormonal production and all the other countless uses amino acids are used for. Then since an abundance of protein is eaten, some of it is stored as glycogen through gluconeogenesis and used as glucose for the brain and other parts that need glucose, but it does not spike your insulin so much that he stores huge amounts of fat, yes a little fat can be stored but in a healthier way. Anyway, Jonny was able to build his body with protein and have sufficient energy from glucose without spiking insulin so there is no insulin resistance to build up over time.

On another note: many people visualize our brains just consuming endless amounts of glucose so everyone goes "oh no, if I dont consume enough carbs, my brain wont have any energy and I wont be able to think." This is also one of the most bogus theories around as well. Truth is, science knows and has known for decades that our brains run 2/3 on fat in the form of ketone bodies, and only 1/3 on glucose.

I am sorry for the long write up and hope I didnt bore anyone, but nutrition is my passion and I like to find and tell only the truth. I really hope that helped you understand more about protein, fat, glucose, and insulin Jared Bond. Please ask us any other questions you want on this forum. I know a lot, but there are plenty on this forum who know more than me. I'm still a newbie my self (3 months) on this raw diet but come from a nutrition backround.

[KD]

I really hope that helped you understand more about protein, fat, glucose, and insulin Jared Bond. Please ask us any other questions you want on this forum. I know a lot, but there are plenty on this forum who know more than me. I'm still a newbie my self (3 months) on this raw diet but come from a nutrition backround.

Actually most of this - no matter how well intentioned - like the posts in the Steffanson thread are as guilty as appropriating simplistic false science that anyone can read on the internet and being similarly condescending.

the fact is that excess protein is converted to glucose, and is unnecessary and possibly harmful and at the very least inefficient.

Dinosaurs bones have been shown to have fossils of brain tumors so it is not simply a condition of sugars or modernization, so that is reductionist at its worst. the very fact that most HG's survive long lives without cancer is useful but not at all bearing or distinguishing between high or low carb diets. The common denominator for most is the foods of civilization, and eating and living  in ways that either inhibit or exacerbate rapid mutogenic breakdown that is actually somewhat natural. Theres reasonable science to suggest a high animal fat diet, is helpful for both this natural process and buffering against the pollutants of the contemporary era. Excess glucose, while possibility not spiking insulin levels seeing since the body would have to convert it? (I'm not sure on that myself) is not by any means a prevention against cancer.

Somewhat related:  A high fructose diet could be considered a high fat diet, since the fructose is almost entirely converted to fat by the liver.

genius. you are totally right, the only issue is the body only needs a little bit of glucose to function.

As far as Matt Stone, I would really be skeptical of anyone who has whole lists of followers on diets that he himself has negligible experience with. Not only is that incredibly irresponsible, its borderline illegal to charge money for what is basically medical advice. The actual parameters which he gauges success, are incredibly skewed by the fact that he recommends all kinds of toxic foods that raise body temperature artificially. That said, its not confusing to me that some people do better than on LC or other raw and/or vegan protocols. Often people are in some kind of healing crisis and trying to force some dogmatic way of eating down their own throat, and basically making no progress or harming themselves physically or mentally. Its certainly helpful to step outside that and look at the bigger picture of health.

[pioneer]

Ive gotten the sources I stated from real science and peer reviewed journals so it is not just dogmatic science. I have previousely stated that when insulin goes up after gluconeogenesis, glucagon does as well, which does not when just sugar is consumed. Glucagon balances the effects of insulin so carbs from protein is way better than carbs from any other source. They have done studies where people have gone ketogenic and completely stopped cancer growth (but it did not reverse it) so it is very related to carbohydrates. The cancer did not reverse in those patients because the study was only done on the correlation of sugar with cancer. Had those patients eaten a raw diet full of proteolytic and systemic enzymes cancer would have been gone within months. Im not in any way saying carbs are bad (cooked ones are). Im saying that if you have cancer, its not a bad idea to go ketogenic.

[pioneer]

Dinosaurs bones have been shown to have fossils of brain tumors so it is not simply a condition of sugars or modernization, so that is reductionist at its worst. the very fact that most HG's survive long lives without cancer is useful but not at all bearing or distinguishing between high or low carb diets. The common denominator for most is the foods of civilization, and eating and living  in ways that either inhibit or exacerbate rapid mutogenic breakdown that is actually somewhat natural. Theres reasonable science to suggest a high animal fat diet, is helpful for both this natural process and buffering against the pollutants of the contemporary era. Excess glucose, while possibility not spiking insulin levels seeing since the body would have to convert it? (I'm not sure on that myself) is not by any means a prevention against cancer

I never said sugar caused cancer, I said it cannot grow without the anerobic environment glucose gives in the body. When oxygen is present cancer cells die. Have you ever heard of anyone with heart cancer, or any muscle cancer for that matter? No; why? because muscles are always moving and full of oxygen. The places with the least oxygen have the cancer. Also cancer is caused by inflammation, just like pretty much every disease. The chinese and Germans have known this for over 100 years. Any kind of inflammation can cause cancer. The chinese found that their water torture formed tumors at the spot of contact when done repeatedly over time. People who smoke have lung cancer because they are inflaming their lungs every day. Alcoholics have liver cancer and cirrhosis of the liver because alcohol causes inflammation and excess toxins in the liver. The reason why this has not been addressed so much in the US is because of liability issues here. Ive gone to other countries and the liability is not the same there so health issues are generally way more honest. But yes other cultures have known this for a long time: inflammation causes cancer. One interesting fact is that many (and I mean a lot) of athletes have dropped dead by heart attacks during marathons and such. Why? because excess aerobic exercise causes inflammation. And some people are so addicted to exercise, they cause so much inflammation that their arteries scar with fibrosis and their arteries literally close. People have believed in the past that most marathoner's deaths were due to hyponatremia (the huge loss of sodium) however this is rarely true and mostly due to heart attacks. As a matter of fact, science has proven that after roughly 30min of aerobic exercise, the heart gets no benefit in return and the opposite effect occurs. That means that after 30 min aerobic exercise only hurts you. Cancer= inflammation and fibrosis, take away them and we're good. What takes away them? Enzymes which we get in our raw diet. Doesnt it make sense that the raw diet is superior? I love the simplicity of understanding it.

[KD]

I never said sugar caused cancer

without sugar in the body cancer cannot manifest. Lets say my friend Jonny eats 300g of protein that day.

I tend to agree that there are problems with aerobic exercise, even so, the way you are describing things is inaccurate and hyperbolic. 30 minutes a day the absolute maximum? There is no way this has been 'proven', or can correlate entirely to types activity especially when you are clearly on the side of diet being an corresponding factor.

Im saying that if you have cancer, its not a bad idea to go ketogenic.

this doesn't appear to be very honest, you were using cancer as a reason to avoid carbohydrate consumption and that high protein (glucose) did not have issues associated with it.

I never said sugar caused cancer, I said it cannot grow without the anerobic environment glucose gives in the body. When oxygen is present cancer cells die. Have you ever heard of anyone with heart cancer, or any muscle cancer for that matter? No;

I love the simplicity of understanding it.

Sarcoma found in the legs arms and neck muscle tissue is in the top 5 cancers found in children, then there is brain cancer and skin cancer is certainly exposed to oxygen. I have heard of heart cancer, its present in humans.  your theory is wrong.

None of these processes are as simplistic or absolute as you make them out to be , Jared asked something very basic and you responded with a bunch of typical dogma as with the last thread of high fat diets and carbohydrates. high glucose form protein might not be as damaging as certain kinds of carbs or processed or cooked carbs, but for some as he mentioned it might not make much of a difference. such high protein for jonny is not ketogenic, so therefore does not correspond to your cancer study anyway.

[pioneer]

http://www.ted.com/talks/eva_vertes_looks_to_the_future_of_medicine.html

watch this video and you will see that cancer only manifests and/ or metastesis in non skeletal muscle. This is one of the most insightful videos I have ever seen and was a treat to find. Rarely ever does cancer grow or metastesize in in skeletal muscle which constitutes over 50% of the body. According to her, it is very rare to get cancer in skeletal muscle. This has already been known in germany and china over 100 years like i said previous. Skeletal muscle is able to control angiogenesis and tumors through the blood vessels.

And you read my reply wrong. There are numerous studies showing that 30 min of aerobic exercise AT A TIME is harmful. It is quite obvious that I meant 30 min at a time not throughout the day, that would be preposterous.

Sorry that I went off of topic after attempting to help JaredBond, and no I dont try to simplify it, but do realize that conventional knowledge can be just as skewed as our theories so I try to philosophize and problemetize what society takes for granted. This is my theory, take it or leave it. I think cancer starts off as inflammation, the body tries to fix the problem by discarding bad cells but has trouble, the bad cells are driven and grown by estrogen, tumor is present, cancer. That is just my theory. Did I say it was fact? no but I am learning and hope to understand it some day. Its cool that you disagree with me, and I think that is what this forum is all about. I love to debate with people and many times learn a lot from them, or they learn a lot from me. I'll have to look into the aerobic theory and cancer some more because I am a little skeptical as well, but it is strange how 50% of our bodies are skeletal muscle which has the most oxygen and does not get cancer. But I do think it is more complex than just oxygen.

[Paleo Donk]

Pioneer - otto warburg

[miles]

Quote from: carnivore on July 02, 2010, 05:40:04 PM
Not to mention that a high meat diet is...a high glucose diet, as the body converts the majority of amino acids into glucose...
Quote from: pioneer on July 02, 2010, 06:10:35 PM
cancer cannot grow at all because it needs the presence of glucose.

Looks like we have a conflict here..............

There is always some glucose in your blood anyway, whether you consume carbohydrates or not. There is an ideal level which the body attempts to maintain, is there not?

Isn't it just that, when not consuming carbs it is much easier for the body to control the blood-sugar and keep it at this level, whereas when consuming carbs, if the body isn't in good condition it can have trouble controlling the levels. Also, isn't one of the reasons carbs cause inflammation because they cause increased hormone production(whether just insulin, or also from the metabolism boost)? Because when the hormones are used they are still active, but just not in the intended way(so can cause undesirable effects) so they need to be flushed out by the liver, and if it isn't functioning properly the hormones can cause un-intentional reactions which lead to inflammation. Also if excess hormones are produced the liver would need to flush them out as well.

Ive gotten the sources I stated from real science and peer reviewed journals so it is not just dogmatic science. I have previousely stated that when insulin goes up after gluconeogenesis, glucagon does as well, which does not when just sugar is consumed. Glucagon balances the effects of insulin so carbs from protein is way better than carbs from any other source. They have done studies where people have gone ketogenic and completely stopped cancer growth (but it did not reverse it) so it is very related to carbohydrates. The cancer did not reverse in those patients because the study was only done on the correlation of sugar with cancer. Had those patients eaten a raw diet full of proteolytic and systemic enzymes cancer would have been gone within months. Im not in any way saying carbs are bad (cooked ones are). Im saying that if you have cancer, its not a bad idea to go ketogenic.

1. Not all stuff published in peer-reviewed journals is good..?
2. Isn't Glucagon the one which heralds the conversion of glycogen in to glucose?

Insert Quote
Quote from: pioneer on Yesterday at 06:22:25 PM
I never said sugar caused cancer
Quote from: pioneer on Yesterday at 04:58:17 PM
without sugar in the body cancer cannot manifest. Lets say my friend Jonny eats 300g of protein that day.

There's always sugar though, whether you eat it or not..?

Sarcoma found in the legs arms and neck muscle tissue is in the top 5 cancers found in children, then there is brain cancer and skin cancer is certainly exposed to oxygen. I have heard of heart cancer, its present in humans.  your theory is wrong.

But... In inflammation, the body is quarantining an area, stopping the flow of blood cells and thus oxygen...? People can certainly get inflammation in their muscles can't they? So if they get inflammation in their muscles there would be no oxygen. Inflammation hurts, because your cells are not getting oxygen and so are dying, right?

[pioneer]

But... In inflammation, the body is quarantining an area, stopping the flow of blood cells and thus oxygen...? People can certainly get inflammation in their muscles can't they? So if they get inflammation in their muscles there would be no oxygen. Inflammation hurts, because your cells are not getting oxygen and so are dying, right?

Yeah I think that makes a lot of sense. Experimental medicine right now is using oxygen and blood blasting and it is working very well. But then I guess anything's better than kemo. I wonder if heat would work too as I know heat pads support blood flow to an area and speeds up healing, could heating the area of cancer bring blood flow and oxygen? Far fetched idea I know.