 |
| You can tell by this scientifically accurate representation of a typically happy and sunny Paleolithic day, replete with smiling veggies and bone-in mammoth roast, that even though she supported cure research Jane Ugg probably didn't get breast cancer herself. OK... but that last part is true. |
This is National Womens' Health Week, and so I thought it would be a good time to address a few topics that are of particular concern to women. We'll start with breast cancer.
While it's true that men can develop breast cancer, it is overwhelmingly predominant in women: over 250,000 new cases were projected to be diagnosed last year in women, and fewer than 2000 cases in men.
I believe it it generally true that proper diet and good exercise promotes health, and that a Paleo diet model and functional fitness such as we do at QuantumFit are sound definitions of "proper" and "good," but there is a specific aspect to address here regarding breast cancer and, indeed, many cancers in general.
Cancer cells need sugar to grow. Part and parcel of the mutations which cause cells to become cancerous in the first place is the loss of their ability to make use of aerobic energy production... rather than prioritizing energy production via the mitochondria, priority is given to processes of cell division. In this state, the cell becomes totally dependent on glucose.
With this knowledge, some of the research being done and the conclusions drawn from it seems strange to me... for example, this article discusses the discovery part of the why and how by which cancer cells utilize glucose (the name of the molecule under discussion, "pyruvate kinase," essentially means "mover of pyruvate," which is the molecule glucose is broken down into during glycolysis), and goes on to suggest development of drugs to inhibit the production of this protein. What is not mentioned once in the article is what might happen if the patient stopped feeding the cancer glucose.
Similarly, this post at Mark's Daily Apple nicely addresses as study involving mice which was presented as evidence that dietary fat and cholesterol may raise the risk of breast cancer development, yet the western diet mice were eating (a) not real food and (b) a diet which was overwhelmingly sugar, not fat. And, sugar feeds cancer.
There is even research into a process called Insulin Potentiation Therapy, which exploits the hunger of cancer cells for sugar to increase the effectiveness of chemotherapy drugs while also reducing the impact of those drugs on healthy cells. It should not be surprising that cancer cells have vastly more insulin receptors (they're screaming for glucose, and insulin brings it to them). But how much more effective would this therapy be if the patient already had, or was promoting, a higher degree of insulin sensitivity by maintaining a low-sugar/low-carb diet?
That sugar feeds cancer is not news... so why isn't it plastered everywhere? Why aren't there big billboards which say, "Cancer eats sugar, so you shouldn't?"
Let's be clear on this, again; your body does not require excess dietary sugar or carbs. There are only a few areas of the body which require glucose to operate, and your body can make the amounts that you actually need, all on its own. You'll get some sugars from eating ripe veggies and fruits, but you don't need to take in more than that.
If cancer has developed, will adopting a Paleo-type diet beat it? No, not on its own. But inhibiting the ability of the cancer to grow will certainly help. And, as a preventative measure, the Paleo diet makes your body an environment which is hostile to the development of most cancers in the first place, by depriving them of an opportunity to take hold.
Everyone's body produces cancerous cells on a regular basis, but the body has mechanisms in place to regulate and repair, so cancer as a disease never develops for most healthy individuals. But, if you've cultivated the perfect cancer-growth environment (eating lots of sugar), you increase the likelihood of the cancerous cells out-pacing the corrective actions. Yes, it's more complex than that, but it's a sound rule of thumb; avoid sugar, inhibit cancer. A fire can't burn if you take oxygen away, and cancer has a hard time growing if you take glucose away.
So, in this way, a Paleo diet will act as a preventative measure against breast cancer, and help inhibit its growth if developed, because it inherently is a low-sugar diet.
Once again, it comes back to this; eat real food. Avoid (or at least avoid an excess of) grains, dairy, legumes, and starchy items like white potatoes. Eat lean protein, healthy fats, plenty of vegetables, and some fruit. It is both amazing and (in hindsight) totally obvious that this will positively impact and help prevent the development of almost every disease linked to diet, from diabetes to cancer. But, I think given the prevalence of breast cancer, this scenic route to the blanket usefulness of adopting a Paleo-type diet was worth it.
While it's true that men can develop breast cancer, it is overwhelmingly predominant in women: over 250,000 new cases were projected to be diagnosed last year in women, and fewer than 2000 cases in men.
I believe it it generally true that proper diet and good exercise promotes health, and that a Paleo diet model and functional fitness such as we do at QuantumFit are sound definitions of "proper" and "good," but there is a specific aspect to address here regarding breast cancer and, indeed, many cancers in general.
Cancer cells need sugar to grow. Part and parcel of the mutations which cause cells to become cancerous in the first place is the loss of their ability to make use of aerobic energy production... rather than prioritizing energy production via the mitochondria, priority is given to processes of cell division. In this state, the cell becomes totally dependent on glucose.
With this knowledge, some of the research being done and the conclusions drawn from it seems strange to me... for example, this article discusses the discovery part of the why and how by which cancer cells utilize glucose (the name of the molecule under discussion, "pyruvate kinase," essentially means "mover of pyruvate," which is the molecule glucose is broken down into during glycolysis), and goes on to suggest development of drugs to inhibit the production of this protein. What is not mentioned once in the article is what might happen if the patient stopped feeding the cancer glucose.
Similarly, this post at Mark's Daily Apple nicely addresses as study involving mice which was presented as evidence that dietary fat and cholesterol may raise the risk of breast cancer development, yet the western diet mice were eating (a) not real food and (b) a diet which was overwhelmingly sugar, not fat. And, sugar feeds cancer.
There is even research into a process called Insulin Potentiation Therapy, which exploits the hunger of cancer cells for sugar to increase the effectiveness of chemotherapy drugs while also reducing the impact of those drugs on healthy cells. It should not be surprising that cancer cells have vastly more insulin receptors (they're screaming for glucose, and insulin brings it to them). But how much more effective would this therapy be if the patient already had, or was promoting, a higher degree of insulin sensitivity by maintaining a low-sugar/low-carb diet?
That sugar feeds cancer is not news... so why isn't it plastered everywhere? Why aren't there big billboards which say, "Cancer eats sugar, so you shouldn't?"
Let's be clear on this, again; your body does not require excess dietary sugar or carbs. There are only a few areas of the body which require glucose to operate, and your body can make the amounts that you actually need, all on its own. You'll get some sugars from eating ripe veggies and fruits, but you don't need to take in more than that.
If cancer has developed, will adopting a Paleo-type diet beat it? No, not on its own. But inhibiting the ability of the cancer to grow will certainly help. And, as a preventative measure, the Paleo diet makes your body an environment which is hostile to the development of most cancers in the first place, by depriving them of an opportunity to take hold.
Everyone's body produces cancerous cells on a regular basis, but the body has mechanisms in place to regulate and repair, so cancer as a disease never develops for most healthy individuals. But, if you've cultivated the perfect cancer-growth environment (eating lots of sugar), you increase the likelihood of the cancerous cells out-pacing the corrective actions. Yes, it's more complex than that, but it's a sound rule of thumb; avoid sugar, inhibit cancer. A fire can't burn if you take oxygen away, and cancer has a hard time growing if you take glucose away.
So, in this way, a Paleo diet will act as a preventative measure against breast cancer, and help inhibit its growth if developed, because it inherently is a low-sugar diet.
Once again, it comes back to this; eat real food. Avoid (or at least avoid an excess of) grains, dairy, legumes, and starchy items like white potatoes. Eat lean protein, healthy fats, plenty of vegetables, and some fruit. It is both amazing and (in hindsight) totally obvious that this will positively impact and help prevent the development of almost every disease linked to diet, from diabetes to cancer. But, I think given the prevalence of breast cancer, this scenic route to the blanket usefulness of adopting a Paleo-type diet was worth it.
