(It’s also worth noting parenthetically that in 2011, knives were used in 1,694 murders. Fists and feet were used in 728 murders, and blunt objects were used in 496 murders. I won’t hold my breath while we wait for Congress to take up the banning of knives, which was more than 5 times more likely to be the murder weapon in 2011 than an assault rifle, or much more stringent car regulations, more rigorous licensure for drivers, etc., as they killed orders of magnitude more people than either guns, knives, clubs – or hands and feet. On second thought, at the current rate of state intervention, we may just see this at some point, but I digress.)
Anyway, Warburg proposed in 1924 that
“Cancer, above all other diseases, has countless secondary causes. But, even for cancer, there is only one prime cause. Summarized in a few words, the prime cause of cancer is the replacement of the respiration of oxygen in normal body cells by a fermentation of sugar.”
This was news to me when it was pointed out by my good friend and mentor, Greg Glassman (yes, that one). We were traveling together and, like most trips, it means time to talk about a huge variety of subjects, after which I usually have hours of “homework” to do in order to ‘catch up.’ We wound up in a fascinating discussion, part of a larger ongoing conversation about human nutrition, that includes cancer’s metabolic processes.
It turns out that no one has ever disproved Warburg’s Theory (I’m elevating it to that level because it is certainly more than conjecture or hypothesis, though not quite Law). In fact, modern PET scans are virtual proof of Warburg’s claim. I didn’t know but Positron Emission Tomography consists of the injection of a short-lived radioactive tracer isotope usually into blood circulation. From wikipedia:
The tracer is chemically incorporated into a biologically active molecule. There is a waiting period while the active molecule becomes concentrated in tissues of interest; then the subject is placed in the imaging scanner. The molecule most commonly used for this purpose is fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG), a sugar, for which the waiting period is typically an hour. During the scan a record of tissue concentration is made as the tracer decays.
So what does this mean? Well, as Warburg pointed out, cancer cells don’t function the way normal cells do. Cellular respiration in a normal (non-cancerous cell) occurs by a process known as glycolytic oxidization. In short, the cell takes blood sugar – Glucose – and breaks it down into component parts to produce adenosyne tri-phosphate, ATP. ATP is the energy molecule that drives all life. The breakdown of ATP produces all of the energy for cell processes in the body. Plants use sunlight to produce ATP in photosynthesis in a very different chemical process, but the point is that ATP is the energy-producing molecule of all living things. Click here for a good, quick and dirty on ATP.
Cancerous cells are much more metabolically active than normal cells. They preferentially “consume” glucose, blood sugar, over normal cells, in some cases by more than 200 times (in active tumors). Thus, in a PET scan, the cancerous tumor cells gobble up more of the radioactive glucose, which “lights them up” as the isotope decays, which can then be scanned and produce the 3D image of the tumor. This is known as “the Warburg Effect.” So, takeaway point: cancer cells live on sugar from the blood.
Time for a divergence for some anthropology. Vilhjalmur Stefansson (born William Stephenson) was a Canadian Arctic explorer. Among his journeys was a notable stay with the Inuit in in the early 1900’s, where he documented their diet of almost solely fish and meat, with only some carbohydrates from berries during the summer months. Captain William Levitt was a ship’s captain who frequently provided supplies to Stefansson’s explorations also helped confirm and document the Inuit high-fat diet, moderate protein, and almost zero carbohydrates.
Turns out several anthropological, and archaeological, studies reveal diets for a number of hunter-gatherer societies that were very low in carbohydrates. Turns out that many of these ancient societies – much like the Inuits – were entirely absent of cancer. I’ll let the impact of that sink in.
When Stefannson reported this, scientists and the medical establishment of the day called bullshit. They simply couldn’t believe it was true. Stefansson later wrote a book called “Cancer: disease of civilization? An anthropological and historical study.” He was one of the first people to coin that phrase.
On a seemingly unrelated note, some of the most famous archaeology – and most interesting to even the modern lay person – surrounds ancient Egyptian society. The Great Pyramids are probably a large part of the draw, and deservedly so. What I found interesting was a backhanded comment Greg made to me a while back about the instances of cancer found among the ancient Egyptians, one of the earliest civilizations (that we know of) that was largely agrarian.
As a matter of human evolution, it’s easy to understand that the very beginnings of human intelligence would have consisted of socialization. It’s largely how we’ve arrived at the top of the food chain (at least on land). We certainly didn’t do so by physical prowess. Try imagining one lone human being defeating a pride of lions or tigers or even hyenas, or surviving against any of the myriad of animals in any environment (bears, wolves, alligators, snakes, etc.). The fact is that we’re not the most physically capable species, but when we band together, and use some of our natural gifts, including the ability to throw on the run, and to run long distances and stay cool by sweating, and domesticate dogs (among many other wonderful talents we have), we’re able to survive. It’s easy to envision the emergence from small hunter-gatherer tribes to builders, to small villages, to larger settlements, to the invention of crude tools for digging, to domestication of beasts of burden, to subsistence farming, to larger scale agriculture. Human evolution does not begin with agriculture, it ends with agriculture (and concomitantly larger settlements). And then cancer.
Agriculture consists of the planting and harvesting of largely wheat or grain or corn crops, all of which share the same common theme – they’re carbohydrates. This is in direct contrast to the diets of hunter-gatherers that would have preceded agriculture: meat from animals, perhaps some berries, nuts or seeds (depending upon climate), and the occasional vegetable/root/tuber growing in the wild.
Generally, our bodies – and our cells – are adapted to use another molecule for energy – fat. Yep, it turns out that one key difference between cancer cells and non-cancerous (“normal”) cells is that normal cells can also use fat (and even protein) as a source of fuel for cellular processes, including the breakdown of fat to make ATP. That process is known as lipolysis and wouldn’t you know that it’s a much “cleaner” cellular metabolic process, producing more ATP per molecule and less unwanted cellular byproducts. Interestingly, part of the vicious cycle of cancer is how inefficient the process is at extracting fuel through its process of fermentation.
This inefficient pathway for energy metabolism yields only 2 moles of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) energy per mole of glucose, compared to 38 moles of ATP in the complete aerobic oxidation of glucose. By extracting only about 5 percent (2 vs. 38 moles of ATP) of the available energy in the food supply and the body’s calorie stores, the cancer is “wasting” energy, and the patient becomes tired and undernourished. This vicious cycle increases body wasting. It is one reason why 40 percent of cancer patients die from malnutrition, or cachexia.
“Cancer’s Sweet Tooth,” Patrick Quillin, PhD, RD, CNS (http://www.mercola.com/article/sugar/sugar_cancer.htm)(footnotes omitted).
I had a girlfriend who suffered one of the worst tragedies I can imagine: she lost both parents to cancer, one after another, within a couple of years. Both parents were vibrant, active, seemingly healthy folks, getting on in years (late 60s early 70s), but nowhere near “the end.” Both were also healthcare professionals. I can remember clearly her mother not being able to eat during chemotherapy and “wasting away” before our very eyes. Worst of all, I can clearly remember that because she couldn’t hold down food, doctors recommended she resort to liquid calories, including things like Ensure, or other kinds of “food” to try to stave off the cachexia. I have nothing against Ensure. Nor doctors. But apparently, the medical profession continues to recommend “healthy” diets that have high sugar and carbohydrate content to help patients “maintain weight” while receiving chemical treatment. Let me offer a thought: “Hey, dumbasses, sugar feeds the cancer.”
Let’s look at Ensure, as an example.
| Ensure Active Protein Drink | Ensure | |
| Serving Size | 10-fl-oz | 8-fl-oz |
| Calories | 180 | 220 |
| Protein, g | 8 | 9 |
| Total Carbohydrate, g | 37 | 33 |
| Total Fat, g | 0 | 6 |
| Essential Vitamins and Minerals | 17 | 24 |
I can only shake my head when I look at it now, in retrospect.
Mr. Quillin (I don’t want to take away from his PhD, but I also don’t want to imply he’s an MD by calling him “Doctor”), wonderfully summarizes what might be the most important point about cancer and modern society.
The 1997 American Diabetes Association blood-glucose standards consider 126 mg glucose/dL blood or greater to be diabetic; 126 mg/dL is impaired glucose tolerance and less than 110 mg/dL is considered normal. Meanwhile, the Paleolithic diet of our ancestors, which consisted of lean meats, vegetables and small amounts of whole grains, nuts, seeds and fruits, is estimated to have generated blood glucose levels between 60 and 90 mg/dL. Obviously, today’s high-sugar diets are having unhealthy effects as far as blood-sugar is concerned. Excess blood glucose may initiate yeast overgrowth, blood vessel deterioration, heart disease and other health conditions.
Id., (emphasis added). Ding!ding!ding! Give that man the cupie doll!
As I noted above, the normal cells in the body can produce more energy, more efficiently, through lipolysis, the use of fat for metabolic processes. By contrast, cancer cells do NOT have the ability to process fats through lipolysis.
I’ll wait while those of you who need a moment can process what this means. Again – part of the mutation of cancer cells is that they can ONLY process sugar, and in the absence of oxygen, while normal cells can use all three major macronutrient molecules (sugar, fat, and protein) to make ATP.
For those who still don’t get it, I’ll quote “Mister” Quillin:
…many cancer patients would have a major improvement in their outcome if they controlled the supply of cancer’s preferred fuel, glucose. By slowing the cancer’s growth, patients allow their immune systems and medical debulking therapies — chemotherapy, radiation and surgery to reduce the bulk of the tumor mass — to catch up to the disease. Controlling one’s blood-glucose levels through diet, supplements, exercise, meditation and prescription drugs when necessary can be one of the most crucial components to a cancer recovery program.
A number of MD’s like Dr. William Li, Dr. Thomas D’Agostino in Florida, and Thomas Seyfried, a professor of Biology at Boston College, have recently begun to shout their support for ketogenic diets in cancer treatment. The research is beginning to suggest they are correct.
Researchers at Huntsman Cancer Institute in Utah were one of the first to discover that sugar “feeds” tumors. The research published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences said, “It’s been known since 1923 that tumor cells use a lot more glucose than normal cells. Our research helps show how this process takes place, and how it might be stopped to control tumor growth,” says Don Ayer, Ph.D., a professor in the Department of Oncological Sciences at the University of Utah.
Dr. Thomas Graeber, a professor of molecular and medical pharmacology, has investigated how the metabolism of glucose affects the biochemical signals present in cancer cells. In research published June 26, 2012 in the journal Molecular Systems Biology, Graeber and his colleagues demonstrate that glucose starvation—that is, depriving cancer cells of glucose—activates a metabolic and signaling amplification loop that leads to cancer cell death as a result of the toxic accumulation of reactive oxygen species (ROS).[1]
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/cancer-sugar-strategy-selective-starvation-cancer
On the other hand, some of the above have been criticized by other doctors over – you won’t believe this – the continuing dogma that these “high fat” diets are unhealthy because they could lead to heart disease. I have no face palm large enough to begin to address this nonsense, but facepalm GIFs are not evidence, nor good argumentation. Let me instead offer some science on this “high fat = bad” dogma, which somehow persists even to this day. (In my opinion, this is in large part because of government’s intervention into healthcare with their fucked up food pyramid, doctrinaire approach, and control of the “bully pulpit” to loudly proclaim what’s good for us. Turns out they’re wrong and killing people in droves. Nice work.)
First, dietary fat does NOT equal bodyfat. Second, it is clear in light of Dr. Richard Johnson’s recent ground-breaking research that “the fat switch” is turned on by (wouldn’t you know it?) sugar, specifically fructose. (See, e.g. this link. It does a very good job of explaining it for the lay person). In short, hibernating animals, like bears, annually “turn on” the fat switch by eating fructose in order to store up body fat and sleep through the winter. During the winter, their bodies switch to lipolysis and use the stored fat as the fuel source to survive the winter. Third, increased fatty deposits around the heart and in the arteries and blood is NOT because of high dietary fat, but because of excess sugar, or some problem which can impact the enzyme (ATGL) that catabolizes fat.
So, where does this leave us? Simple. Stay the fuck away from sugar.
Easier said than done.
Since I’ve come this far in our discussion, let me point out just how crazy, corrupt, and craven our government – your government, my government (the one I risked my life for for more than 20 years of my life) – and its policies, are.
On my recent trip that began this discovery, I was traveling with Greg to Nebraska, where he was speaking to a libertarian think-tank (the Platte Institute) regarding some public policy matters. During the Question and Answer period, someone asked about government subsidies for corn, in front of an audience of legislators and businessmen, in light of Greg’s assertions about the problems with the American diet, including the prevalence of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS). We had discussed this exact issue earlier that morning and how awkward that might be to that particular audience.
The history of corn in the United States deserves its own writeup, but I have neither the time nor the energy to delve into it here. Fortunately, someone else has already done that, so check it out at this link if you care. It dates right to the founding of this country (and by “founding, I mean, when it was “found” by western explorers from Europe in the late 1400s). Corn was one of the principal things mentioned by Columbus in his journal: “a sort of grain they call Maize, which is very well tasted when boiled, roasted, or made into porridge.”
For relevance to our discussion of cancer are farm subsidies that total more than $300 billion each year. Yes, with a “b” which should probably be capitalized (pun intended). The majority of that goes to corn growers. I don’t need to rail about Monsanto because if politicians did their fucking jobs instead of being money-grubbing pieces of shit, Monsanto would have to stand on its own merits in the market, rather than being the beneficiary of “Uncle Sugar’s” benevolent hand, tipping the scales and prices in favor of cheap corn.
Much of the food we have to choose from—and how much it costs—is determined by the 1,770-page, almost $300-billion Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (commonly known as the “farm bill”). This piece of legislation… covers everything from nutrition assistance programs to land conservation efforts. It also determines how much money gets paid out to agricultural operations in subsidies and crop insurance programs. Federal support for agriculture, begun in earnest during the Great Depression, was originally intended as a temporary lifeline to farmers, paying them extra when crop prices were low. Nearly eight decades later the benefits flow primarily to large commodity producers of corn and soy, which are as profitable as ever.
The current bill gives some $4.9 billion a year in automatic payments to growers of such commodity crops, thus driving down prices for corn, corn-based products and corn-fed meats…
Cheap corn has also become a staple in highly processed foods, from sweetened breakfast cereals to soft drinks, that have been linked to an increase in the rate of type 2 diabetes, a condition that currently affects more than one in 12 American adults. Between 1985 and 2010 the price of beverages sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup dropped 24 percent, and by 2006 American children consumed an extra 130 calories a day from these beverages. Over the same period the price of fresh fruits and vegetables rose 39 percent. For families on a budget, the price difference can be decisive in their food choices.
But fruits and vegetables do not have to be more expensive than a corn-laden chicken nugget or corn syrup–sweetened drink. One reason they are costly is that the current farm bill categorizes them as “specialty crops” that do not receive the same direct payments or crop insurance that commodity crops do.
Scientific American, “For a Healthier Country, Overhaul Farm Subsidies” (May 1, 2012).
So, the government pays corn growers a subsidy to guarantee a minimum price for their product, as well as require ethanol – a corn byproduct – in gasoline (another boon to corn-growers). Corn is used to make high fructose corn syrup, which is essentially a toxin to the human body. No, it won’t kill you tomorrow, but it will kill you eventually. (See the studies on rats injected with HFCS, even as compared to those injected with table sugar). Corn growers produce HFCS, which is found in nearly every product in every aisle in the grocery store – even the “low fat” or “gluten free” ones. Cornstarch is another product that doesn’t help, yet foods made with it are constantly advertised as “healthy” and even touted by the government as being “good” because they’re “low in saturated fat.” So, the people who buy these kinds of products, as a general matter? Poor people. Or lower income people.
You think I’m exaggerating? Check out health outcomes by where people shop. Whole Foods and Trader Joe’s carry very little of these kinds of products – and yes, they’re more expensive. Who shops there? Go to Whole Foods and tell me how many “low income” people you see there next time you get a chance. But as the article above points out, it doesn’t have to be that way. Government regulation and intervention has produced this state of affairs, not “capitalism” or free markets, as frequently ranted by the Media Left. Monsanto is powerless to force you or I to consume what they make, nor would they enjoy the market advantage they have if not for FDR’s first meddling with corn subsidies and price floors. Like most government giveaways, once it starts, it never stops. The dependent don’t suddenly decide they don’t like getting free money from the government; it just grows. Always.
So, government spends $300 billion to fund corn and other carbohydrates, then people eat the stuff because it’s cheap and convenient, then the government spends how much on healthcare for people who have all of the “diseases of civilization” associated with grain-based diets, including cancer, and the government also subsidizes the people who are on welfare and other federal assistance programs to buy said products – using their government-given dollars or food stamps, and now the government wants to underwrite the healthcare for those same people. Someone please do the math on how much the government spends in that equation, to create cheap, shitty, unhealthy foods, a market for those foods, the money to pay for those foods, and the healthcare dollars to spend on the diseases that result from those foods. And when I say “how much government spends” I’d like to just remind you that it’s your money – every penny of it – taken from the American taxpayer under threat of force… but voluntarily, because we amended the Constitution to do it, but I guess that’s okay.
And people wonder why I now hate my own government. Put me down for libertarian, all day long, any day of the week.