Chronic Wellness Forum

Hey guys!

One of my biggest concerns, and something that has the possibility of keeping me awake at night, is Cancer. I had a Mole removed a little over a year ago that was "pre-melonoma". I was a Paleo practitioner for some time before that and for some time after. I remained mostly low-carb, sometimes very-low-carb, because I was trying to maintain my low body-fat level, and I was convinced that Sugar feeds cancer. In Paleo, it is taught that taking away the majority of the Glucose available to the body, and therefore forcing it into a Ketogenic state, is a great way to avoid cancer or slow existing tumor growth. These beliefs have made me very scared of sugar, because of the rationale that sugar causes, and then feeds cancer.

Ray's articles paint an entirely different picture, and the majority of his work is VERY convincing. I have been eating a largely peat-atarian diet for the last two weeks, and I feel great. Many differences are being felt, that I would love to detail in another thread, another time.......but I'm so worried that experimenting like this, and leaving behind the supposed anti-cancer safety of low-carb Paleo is going to do more harm than good.

With my Paleo background, it's easy to find multiple reputable proponents of the paleo type of diet, who have been working with people in a clinical environment that have witnessed some of the "health fixes" that Paleo promises to provide, and there are multiple research articles on the efficacy of using the Ketogenic diet as therapy for epilepsy, and cancer.

I guess I'm looking to something to back-up Dr. Peats theories....testimonials.....research papers....something that shows that he's not the only person in the world who believes that sugar can actually be anti-cancer in the right environment (minus PUFAs etc). Maybe then I would worry less about raising my chances of developing cancer, and focus on the merits of Dr. Peat's way of eating. Any thoughts? THANKS!

Ketones are a marker for chronic stress in tumor bearing animals.

Biokhimiia. 1987 Sep;52(9):1501-11.
[Activation of lipolysis and ketogenesis in tumor-bearing animals as a reflection of chronic stress states].
[Article in Russian]
Chekulaev VA, Shelepov VP, Pasha-zade GR, Shapot VS.

----
Barry,

I understand your concerns b/c when you start to read Dr. Peat's it will turn your world upside down yet at the same time maybe correlate directly to yourself or someone you know making it very intriguing. This causes some brain hurt and may require some relearning and questioning. I will try my best to answer your concerns.

Virtually every single thing Dr. Peat writes about is science based and nothing is based on being trendy or what industry or mainstream dictates. He's not pulling this material out of hat. When he adds his two cents, it's logical and sensical. His worked is based on hundreds of other researchers so when you say Dr. Peat you are also mentioning other researchers who sometimes utilize simple and effective means of health preservation or correction. If you're looking for backing, look at his resources. Research the people he's researched. This information is all 100% transparent. He has several article regarding cancer so those would be good to read. My blog provides research on various topics supporting Dr. Peat's work or based directly on his writings.

Sugar consumption is not the cause of cancer. Cancer is a respiratory defect (see Warburg Effect) and another expression of the outcome of the low energy state of the organism. Glucose is the preferred fuel by all trillion of your cells. Glucose is needed for oxidative metabolism, which is the most efficient and powerful means of creating energy and CO2 in your body. You can make glucose by other means, however, these other means take energy, produce less energy, and are ultimately inefficient in comparison. This is all basic stuff.

http://www.functionalps.com/blog/2011/1 ... at-a-cost/

Glucose restriction leads to the stress metabolism that is inefficient, low energy, decreases oxygen consumption, and mimics that of cancer - increased lactic acid, less CO2, rise in adrenaline and cortisol which depletes progesterone and lowers metabolism, depletion of glycogen, conversion of protein to glucose, oxidation of fat and protein, high PUFA which block glucose oxidation (Randle Effect), high inflammation, high endotoxin exposure (leaky intestines), low thyroid, tissue wasting (like cachexia), etc. There are many between the low carber and the cancer patient, after-all they are both in a chronic stress state.

The major premise of Dr. Peat's work in my eyes is maximize biological energy production which increases production of the protective substances while decreasing the degenerative factors. Dr. Peat's work is protective because it encourages oxidative metabolism and oxygen consumption, supports production of anti-cancer steroids (like pregnenolone and progesterone) from cholesterol, balances blood sugar, provides much vitamin and mineral nourishment from traditional foods which promote a high energy state, reduces endotoxicity, decreases PUFA and iron consumption (which are carcinogenic in excess), and support thyroid/metabolic function and the production of CO2 (which oxygenates the tissues).

When protective factors check or offset the inflammatory factors, the body's resiliency is high; however, when these tables turn is when things can start to breakdown as the organism no longer has the means available to positively adapt to the stressor(s). As Dr. Peat puts it -- "Cancer metabolism" or stress metabolism typically involves an excess of the adaptive hormones, resulting from an imbalance of the demands made on the organism and the resources available to the organism.

Below is a glossary of terms that may help. From: http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/lactate.shtml

Aerobic glycolysis, the conversion of glucose to lactic acid even in the presence of oxygen. The presence of oxygen normally restrains glycolysis so that glucose is converted to carbon dioxide instead of lactic acid.

Anaerobic glycolysis, the increased conversion of glucose to lactic acid when the supply of oxygen isn't sufficient, which is a normal event during intense muscle action.

"Warburg Effect" refers to Otto Warburg's observation that cancer cells produce lactic acid even in the presence of adequate oxygen. Cancer cells don't "live on glucose," since they are highly adapted to survive on protein and fats.

Pasteur Effect, the normal response of cells to restrain glycolysis in the presence of adequate oxygen.

Crabtree Effect, observed originally in yeast, refers to the inhibition of respiration in the presence of glucose. This occurs in cancers (e.g., Miralpeix, et al., 1990) and in rapidly proliferating normal cells (e.g., Guppy, et al., 1993).

"Cancer metabolism" or stress metabolism typically involves an excess of the adaptive hormones, resulting from an imbalance of the demands made on the organism and the resources available to the organism. Excessive stimulation depletes glucose and produces lactic acid, and causes cortisol to increase, causing a shift to the consumption of fat and protein rather than glucose. Increased cortisol activates the Randle effect (the inhibition of glucose oxidation by free fatty acids), accelerates the breakdown of protein into amino acids, and activates the enzyme fatty acid synthase, which produces fatty acids from amino acids and pyruvate, to be oxidized in a "futile cycle," producing heat, and increasing the liberation of ammonia from the amino acids. Ammonia suppresses respiratory, and stimulates glycolytic, activity.

Wow...thanks for the lengthy reply!! It all makes a lot of sense.

It's funny really, because living the Paleo lifestyle is definitely a step outside of the norm. Most of the notions that fat does not cause heart disease, and Cholesterol is necessary and beneficial are a definite departure from conventional wisdom, but one thing that the Paleo community and the ill-informed mainstream HAVE in common is the well established hated and fear of sugar.

Suddenly, Eric Lepine comes along and introduces me to Ray Peat's work. I'm very logical and scientific in nature, so imagine my surprise when I found that Ray makes an amazing case in favor of sugar. It all adds up.....Gluten, PUFAs, Serotonin, Estrogen, Carageenan, fiber, Endotoxin....etc...etc....

I'm learning, and accepting bit by bit. Again, thanks for your input Rob!

Follow-up question....

One of the foundations of the whole "Ketosis is good" standpoint, is that ancient man could have probably spent a decent amount of time in Ketosis, because of the scarcity of food, and the relatively high availability of animal flesh, over fruits and vegetables. Surely such a natural response wouldn't have such negative health consequences?

Any thoughts on that?

The example you provide speaks to how ketosis is a state consistent with surviving, not thriving. Being in ketosis 24/7 is very stressful as indicated by my scientific reference to tumor bearing animals. Preserving this state intentionally is degenerative whether it is for the sake of being lean or for the sake of "health."

If there wasn't sugar around, why is glucose oxidation our primary means of making energy?

"Surviving, not thriving" great point!!!

Well, the low-carb perspective is that like alcohol, glucose is toxic and is therefore metabolized quickly in order to remove it from circulation in our body.

I'm not posting this to prove you wrong, because you've already answered my question, and I'm not looking to argue Ray's wisdom, but to give you an idea of how the other side explains things, here is an article that pretty much sums up the conventional low-carb wisdom on Glucose:
http://blog.questproteinbar.com/carbs-a ... been-told/

The premise of that article is completely bunk, and the fact that its on a website promoting Quest Protein products makes it that much more ridiculous.

If we don't need glucose, why does the body convert our skin, muscle, thymus, and if sugar deprivation is long enough, organs, to make glucose? The body converts our own tissues into a "poison" to use as energy?

I wasn't trying to show you a peer-reviewed article or anything, I was just pointing out what the low-carb crew believes.

The argument against your last point is that the liver can produce exactly as much glucose as the brain needs, and to keep blood-glucose levels low and stable. Any additional glucose in the blood can become toxic, so insulin is secreted to shuttle the glucose into glycogen stores, or be turned into triglycerides for storage.

On a Ray Peat type of diet, I'm guessing the best way to lose body-fat is to drop the saturated fat intake? Do people generally have any problems losing-weight, or staying lean on this protocol?

I'm thrilled that I've gained about 6 pounds of muscle in the last week, thanks to all of the quality carbs, but I've put a few pounds of fat on too.....probably thanks to full fat dairy I imagine. haha!

Not peer reviewed is right. haha. But even peer reviewed is a watered down term nowadays. What is or isn't published is in part determined by pharma which is why Dr. Peat, as an independent researcher, is of such value.

The mood regulation problems of those eating low carbohydrate diets suggest the brain isn't getting enough glucose. When you deplete glycogen by not eating enough carbohydrate or from chronic stress or both, mood issues tend to happen as the brain is a very energy hungry tissue that depends upon glucose. Making glucose from your own tissues, as pointed out in this thread, is incredibly inefficient when compared to oxidative metabolism and serves as a metabolic burden on the liver much like the conversion of lactic acid into glucose. Let the liver used its energy to convert T4 to T3 or detox estrogen, PUFA, or another toxin. Burdening the liver with making glucose from non-carbohydrates sources is like a nagging friend/coworker/spouse - it drains energy unnecessarily.

Glycogen is an interesting topic. Why does the body store "toxic" glycogen in vital tissues like the brain, liver, and muscles?

On a Ray Peat type diet you lose fat at rest. Muscle cells metabolize fatty acids at rest when the metabolic rate is high. The same occurs in youth. Sugar spares protein allowing for muscle preservation.

"In the resting state, muscles consume mainly fats, so maintaining relatively large muscles is important for preventing the accumulation of fats." -Ray Peat, PhD

Our methods can take longer to change body composition, but usually people don't put on 30lbs in a month either so don't expect to take it off in that amount of time. The reason people put on weight is because of a decrease in the metabolic rate. For the sake of "health," people are often doing a real number on their metabolic rate. Women, because of estrogen, have a harder time than males usually correcting a metabolic deficiency.

"Many health conscious people become hypothyroid with a synergistic program of undercooked vegetables, legumes instead of animal proteins, oils instead of butter, carotene instead of vitamin A, and breathless exercise instead of stimulating life." -Ray Peat, PhD

We encourage a youthful metabolism and like to see a low inflammatory mediators, high temperature and pulse, good sleep quality and duration, daily bowel movements, stable blood sugar, no digestive symptoms, good libido, balanced energy and emotions, and ample production of protective steroids from cholesterol.

The methodology that is prescribed by low carbers and a vast majority of exercise professionals is to drop blood sugar to the point that you have stress driven lipolysis via adrenaline. Teamed with this is the conversion of dietary protein and protein containing tissues into glucose. This is that survival mechanism again which is degenerative in the long term and only should be used intermittently.

The survival metabolism lowers your adaptability to stress over time by lowering thyroid hormones production (during prolonged stress, the body will always protectively lower metabolism to slow the use of its tissues as fuel) and this in turn lowers the production of protective steroids hormones, CO2, and the oxygenation of tissues. This is a center theme in aging I feel. During the low energy, stress state, inflammatory mediators rise at a time when we can't oxygenate the tissues nor make protective steroids.

Take the temperature and pulse of a dedicated low carber, and it will be either in the doldrums or above optimal depending upon a few factors. Eric Lepine may be able to relate; I know I can as a former "protein type." How does the low carber get/remain lean? By lowering blood sugar and raising adrenaline, spurring stress-driven lipolysis. This getting lean provides people with the impression that their metabolism is high, yet they are only able to remain lean because of stress hormones. Subsequent attempts to create the same effect with low carb eating are often not as successful because of the progressive lowering of the metabolic rate.

Low Carb Diet - Death to Metabolism
http://www.functionalps.com/blog/2010/1 ... etabolism/

Hello fpsRT
Thanks for sharing your thoughts !
Since you mention being a 'Protein Type', may I ask what you think of metabolic typing ?