This post is very exciting for me.
It covers a subject I care deeply about (cancer), and it’s exclusive, unpublished material from a New York Times Magazine feature entitled “An Old Idea, Revived: Starve Cancer to Death.” Written by Sam Apple, this piece got a lot of attention.
Now, here on this blog, you can read what didn’t make it in.
First, some context and definitions are in order, as I can’t reproduce the NYT piece in full. Let’s set the tone with a few paragraphs from a previous cancer-related post with Peter Attia, MD. These words are mine:
“With 19 billion capillaries in our bodies, on average, virtually 100% of us have microscopic cancers by the time we’re 70 years old, more than 40% of us by age 40. There’s a good chance you have pinhead-size cancers in your body right now. These “cancers without disease” aren’t typically a problem, as they can’t grow larger than 0.5 mm without a blood supply.
But if cancer cells get constant blood and glucose? Well, that’s when you can end up dead.”
“It’s also important to realize that killing cancer cells isn’t hard. Doctors have known how to do this for 100+ years. The real questions is: how do you exploit a weakness in cancer that is NOT a weakness in normal cells? Killing cancer is easy. Killing cancerous cells while not killing non-cancerous cells has proven incredibly difficult.”
Moving on to definitions, the most important is the “Warburg Effect.”
Below is a summary from the same Dr. Attia piece, and the words are his this time. Citations can be found in the original:
“In 1924 a scientist named Otto Warburg happened upon a counterintuitive finding.
Cancer cells, even in the presence of sufficient oxygen, underwent a type of metabolism cells reserved for rapid energy demand – anaerobic metabolism. In fact, even when cancer cells were given additional oxygen, they still defaulted into using only glucose to make ATP via the anaerobic pathway. This is counterintuitive because this way of making ATP is typically a last resort for cells, not a default, due to the relatively poor yield of ATP.
This observation begs a logical question: Do cancer cells do this because it’s all they can do? Or do they deliberately ‘choose’ to do this?
The first place to look is at the mitochondria of the cancer cells. Though not uniformly the case, many cancers do indeed appear to have defects in their mitochondria that prevent them from carrying out oxidative phosphorylation.”
How can we capitalize on these apparent defects?
Researchers will continue to debate the causes of cancer and best treatments, but–in the meantime–there appear to be promising dietary interventions we can use with little to no downside. I’m no doctor, nor do I play one on the Internet, but that’s my current conclusion.
I’ll let Sam pick up the thread from here. Any comments in brackets are mine. Enjoy!
Enter Sam Apple
Hello, Tim Ferriss readers. I’m writing here today because I recently wrote a feature for The New York Times Magazine on Otto Warburg and the revival of cancer metabolism research.
I’m happy about how the piece turned out and very flattered by the kind responses I’ve received. But, as is almost always the case when I publish magazine articles, a significant portion of what I wrote never made it into print. That’s the bad news. The good news is that Tim has been nice enough to offer to publish some of the snippets that the Times didn’t have enough space for. As his loyal fans will know, Tim has been at the forefront of this story for a long time, so I’m really delighted to be able to contribute to this blog.
Another bit of good news: I’ve recently heard from some editors at publishing houses who are interested in a book on this topic. If you’d like to be notified if and when the book becomes available, please email me at samapple.update [at] gmail.com with “book” as the subject.
Okay, enough chitchat. Let’s get to the science…
The Ketogenic Diet
I’ve received a number of emails asking why I didn’t mention the ketogenic diet in my article. After all, if the aim of metabolic therapies is to disrupt cancer’s use of nutrients, it follows that a diet that lowers glucose and insulin levels may be beneficial. In fact, I had discussed the ketogenic diet and the fascinating research being carried out by Thomas Seyfried and Dominic D’Agostino, among others, in my original draft. Here’s a passage that got lost along the way:
On the surface, the strategy of using drugs to cut off a tumor’s supply of nutrients is not unlike the strategy advocated by Thomas Seyfried, at Boston College, who is the author of Cancer as a Metabolic Disease. Seyfried is among the few researchers who believe Warburg got the whole story right and that cancer originates with the cell’s inability to produce sufficient energy with oxygen. Other researchers aren’t seeing the damage to respiration, Seyfried argues, because they’re looking at cancer cells outside of the body and failing to appreciate that cells in culture behave differently. Warburg “had this thing pegged,” Seyfried says.
Unlike most cancer metabolism researchers, Seyfried is primarily focused on non-toxic therapies, particularly the ketogenic diet, which has been used as a therapy for epilepsy for decades. The ketogenic diet is a high-fat, very low-carbohydrate diet, though Seyfried believes the diet also has to restrict calories to be effective against cancer. Without access to carbohydrates, which breakdown to glucose, the liver turns to fat and produces ketone bodies, an alternative fuel source that very few cancers are able to use.
[TIM: On such a diet, 95%+ of the ketones produced are derived from beta-oxidation of fatty bodies. A small % comes from ketogenic amino acids (AAs) such as leucine and lysine. That said, a high-protein diet doesn’t work well for inducing ketosis, as the liver will convert AAs into glucose via the process of gluconeogenesis.]
Seyfried, together with Dominic D’Agostino of the University of South Florida College of Medicine [TIM: Dom’s advice has led me to conduct monthly fasting experiments], is now investigating the combination of ketogenic diets and non-toxic therapies. When Seyfried, D’Agostino, and colleagues combined a ketogenic diet with hyperbaric oxygen treatment (HBOT) in a mouse model of aggressive metastatic brain cancer, they were able to dramatically shrink tumors and increase the average survival time from 31.2 days for mice on a standard diet to 55.5 days, a significant increase for an advanced cancer.
[TIM: For HBOT protocol, Dominic used 2.5 Atmospheres (2.5A) for 60 minutes on Mon, Wed, and Fri. Including pressurization and depressurization, each session was ~90 minutes.]
When they did the experiment again and added synthetically made ketone supplements to the non-toxic therapies, the results were even better [TIM: Here’s the study. Dominic adds, “Therapeutic ketosis with hyperbaric oxygen targeted tumor metabolism while simultaneously inducing oxidative damage in cancer cells by triggering an overproduction of oxygen free radicals”]. “Everybody’s always saying, ‘We want something that targets the cancer cell but spares the normal cell,’” Seyfried says. “The ketogenic diet does that.”
More on Diet, Glucose, and Insulin
Insulin, among its other roles in the body, tells a cell to take up glucose, a fact that makes it a natural suspect for a connection to the Warburg effect. When insulin resistance develops, cells are no longer as responsive to insulin, and the pancreas responds by producing more and more, at least until it wears out and diabetes begins to develop.
Too much insulin signaling and glucose uptake aren’t necessarily a problem for all cells, at least when it comes to cancer. Muscle and fat cancers may be extremely rare because the cells of those tissues have a way to store excess glucose and don’t need to metabolize it right away. Craig Thompson, the president and chief executive of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, thinks the same would be true of liver cancer, if not for inflammation from hepatitis infections. Breast, endometrial, and colon cells, by contrast, are rarely exposed to insulin signaling under normal conditions. “It’s a little scary to think that those pathways are getting turned on by 50 times higher insulin in your serum, 24-hours a day,” says Lewis Cantley, the director of the Meyer Cancer Center at Weill Cornell Medical College.
It was Cantley who brought the worlds of insulin signaling and cancer metabolism research together with his discovery of the of the enzyme phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K) in the mid-1980s. PI3K is part of a pathway of proteins that regulates the effects of insulin and IGF-1 (a closely related hormone) inside of a cell. When Cantley made his initial discovery, it wasn’t immediately obvious that it had implications for cancer, though by the end of the decade Cantley had become convinced he was onto something significant. The rest of the cancer community began to pay attention in the late 1990s, when other researchers discovered that PTEN, the tumor suppressor gene that has the job of slowing the PI3K pathway down — Cantley calls it “the braking system for PI3K” — is one of the most commonly deleted genes in many cancers. Mutations in the PI3K pathway have since been found in up to 80 percent of all cancers. These are the same cancers that use the Warburg effect and show up on PET scans.
According to Cantley, the PI3K pathway can be activated by mutations even when there is no extra insulin around or by extra insulin even when mutations haven’t yet appeared. But there’s reason to think that long-term elevated insulin, driven by diet, is often the first step in the process. Once the cells begin to take up more and more glucose, Cantley explains, they also produce more and more reactive oxygen species, or free radicals, which can lead to mutations — including mutations in the PI3K pathway. These mutations can further accelerate glucose uptake until the cell no longer even needs the insulin to obtain its steady influx of glucose.
Thompson found his interest turning to PI3K pathway upon his discovery of the role of AKT in regulating glucose uptake. AKT is part of the same pathway as PI3K, which is now also referred to as the PI3K/AKT pathway. That insulin signaling could be driving many cancers fit perfectly with Thompson’s research. Thompson had discovered that cells are supposed to be able to carefully control when other cells eat. The bombardment of insulin and IGF-1 signaling makes a mockery of that delicate regulation.
It’s also possible that, in some cases, insulin resistance contributes to cancer only indirectly, by causing the pancreas to peter out and stop producing enough insulin. When that happens, glucose levels rise in the blood and diabetes begins to set in. Whether it’s the elevated insulin or the elevated glucose that follows that’s driving the growth of tumors can be difficult to tease out. Matthew Vander Heiden, a leading cancer metabolism researcher at MIT, says that whether insulin or glucose is playing a more important role may depend on the given cancer. “Both probably contribute,” he says.
[TIM: This is one reason I tend to avoid not only high glycemic-load foods (the usual carb-rich suspects), but also insulinemic (insulin-spiking) foods that fly under the radar due to low glycemic load/index, including many types of dairy and non-caloric sweeteners. Explanations for the latter range from bitterness to microbiome impact.]
Other Top Cancer Metabolism Researchers and a Note of Caution
Writing an article of this nature is always a bit of a balancing act. On the one hand, I’m genuinely enthusiastic about the Warburg revival and think it holds enormous promise for cancer treatment, and, in particular, the role of diet in cancer prevention. But with respect to treating most cancers, there remains a long way to go before we’ll know if metabolic therapies live up to their promise. Many of the researchers I spoke with see a future of metabolic therapies used in conjunction with other therapies. And while almost everyone I talked to was optimistic about the future of metabolism drugs, a number of the researchers stressed the challenges ahead.
Matthew Vander Heiden of MIT (mentioned above), studies the biochemical pathways that cells use to fuel their growth. He believes that targeting metabolism might leave tumors with fewer opportunities to evade treatments than targeting mutations, but also stresses that metabolism is extremely complicated. “I really push the idea that there’s not one cancer metabolism,” says Vander Heiden, noting that a liver cell that becomes a tumor might require different metabolic changes than a lung cell that becomes a tumor.
David Sabatini of MIT’s Whitehead Institute, also struck a note of caution during our conversation. Sabatini discovered the mechanistic target of rapamycin (mTOR) while still a graduate student at Johns Hopkins. The mTOR pathway is a critical regulator of growth in many species, but despite — or perhaps because of — his significant contribution to the field, Sabatini has come to appreciate the many challenges cancer metabolism researchers still face: “Pathways,” according to Sabatini, “can go in many, many different directions and change very, very quickly.” Sabatini says that he currently sees the most hope for therapies that are able to target cancer cells where they differ from other proliferating cells, which can also turn to the Warburg effect when growing.
Peter Attia, a prominent doctor who spent two years as a surgical oncology fellow at the National Cancer Institute [in Steve Rosenberg’s immunotherapy lab] and served as the president of the Nutrition Science Initiative, has been publicly drawing attention to the promise of metabolic therapies for a number of years on his blog, The Eating Academy. But Attia also told me that it’s naïve to assume that metabolic therapies are going to be “the Holy Grail.” “We have to give cancer a hell of a lot more respect than that,” Attia says. Attia sees a future where chemotherapy, and perhaps also radiation for local control, remain in the arsenal but are accompanied by immune-based therapies, possibly hyperbaric oxygen, and “huge amounts of metabolic therapy” — including dietary changes. “I think that at that point you can turn cancer into a chronic disease,” says Attia [TIM: I spoke with Peter and he added “Basically, think of HIV. You die with it, perhaps, but not necessarily from it.”]. “You’ve got to be able to exploit every weakness.”
I was also sorry that I didn’t have more room to discuss the work of Peter Pedersen, a biochemist at Johns Hopkins, who was among the relatively few cancer researchers who continued to pursue Warburg’s ideas about tumors and energy long after they fell out of fashion. Pedersen still remembers the day, around the time he came to Johns Hopkins in 1964, that he spotted parts of a device known as a Warburg apparatus left out in the hallway with the trash. The Warburg apparatus, which measures respiration, had already been replaced by more modern technology, but the symbolism was hard to miss. According to Pedersen, there was already “little or no interest” in Warburg at the time. (Pedersen also wanted me to flag that the critical research on 3-bromopyruvate was carried out by Dr. Young Ko.)
More on Otto Warburg and the Nazis
While working on the history portion of my article, I received extremely valuable assistance from Petra Gentz-Werner, who has written several books about Warburg in German. Here’s a bit more detail on Warburg, including the story of how Hitler’s inner circle protected him:
Warburg was a short, handsome man with penetrating blue eyes. He had a deep knowledge of literature and history and became a lifelong Anglophile after a visit to Cambridge as a young man — he collected antique English furniture and would travel to England to buy his suits. In his written reflections on meeting Warburg at his institute in Berlin, the German biochemist Theodor Bücher recalled Warburg’s elegant woolen waistcoat, gray tweed trousers and carefully polished Scottish shoes.
Why Warburg took an interest in cancer as a young man is not entirely clear. In his slim biography of Warburg, the Nobel Prize-winning biochemist Hans Krebs, who worked in Warburg’s lab as a young man, writes that Warburg first became interested in cancer while still a medical student after becoming aware of the “ravages” of the disease and the lack of successful treatments. But cancer was likely on Warburg’s mind for the same reason it was likely on Boveri’s mind at the time. In the early 20th Century, the prevalence of cancer in Germany was greater than in almost any other nation and rising rapidly
That Warburg believed he would be the one to cure cancer was an early sign of what would later become an almost legendary arrogance. Dr. Richard Veech, a metabolism researcher at the National Institutes of Health, who did his doctorate at Oxford in the lab of Hans Krebs, remembers the day the then 65-year-old Krebs, a world-renown scientist, showed up in the lab in his pinstriped suit. Warburg had just sent Krebs a telegram telling him to come to Berlin. “I do not want your opinion,” Warburg wrote. “I want an audience.” Krebs spent two days listening to Warburg’s theory then flew back to England.
Of course, Warburg was the rare megalomaniac whose belief in his own greatness was fairly well founded. Warburg enlisted in the Germany military upon the outbreak of World War I, serving as a physician and an assistant to a senior officer in a cavalry regiment that fought on the front lines. In 1918, Einstein, prompted by Warburg’s mother, sent Warburg a letter in which he urged him to come home. In making his case, Einstein suggested to Warburg that his survival was important to the future of German physiology, and Einstein, as usual, turned out to be right. Warburg would return to Berlin and go on to become perhaps the greatest biochemist of the 20th century, making enormous contributions not only to the study of cancer, but also to the study of photosynthesis and metabolic enzymes.
[Skipping ahead here so as not to republish material from The Times] Still, the most remarkable fact was not that the Nazis prevented Warburg’s award but that Warburg was alive and well in Nazi Germany in 1944. The Nazis began purging universities and academic institutes of Jewish scholars as early as 1933, but Warburg, despite his Jewish ancestry, was left almost entirely unbothered. Worse yet for Warburg’s prospects in Nazi Germany, he lived with another man, Jakob Heiss. After serving in World War I, Heiss, according to Krebs, moved in with Warburg to “keep house” and then never left. Krebs writes that the two were “virtually inseparable.”
It certainly helped that Warburg was already a famous scientist and that the Rockefeller Foundation had funded the institute he ran in Berlin. And Warburg was well connected in German society. But fame and connections had not been enough to make other German scientist of the era untouchable. The most common explanation is that that Warburg was kept alive because a number of leading Nazis, including Hitler, were thought to be terrified of cancer. Hitler’s mother died from breast cancer in 1907 and Hitler believed his stomach cramps could be an early sign of the disease. So it’s easy to picture the bind Warburg must have created for the Nazis. In a country where cancer was genuinely dreaded, and where Jews were regularly referred to as tumors in the German body, Nazi leaders likely had come to see their best hope for a cure not only in a man of Jewish descent, but in a Jew who happened to have one of the most famous Jewish last names in the world and who lived with another man.
In 1941 Warburg’s scientific rivals did manage to have him dismissed from his position as director of Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Cell Physiology on the grounds that he had non-Aryan blood. At this point Warburg appeared to be in great danger and was likely saved by several influential connections who persuaded Philipp Bouhler, the head of Hitler’s private chancellery, to reconsider Warburg’s case. Bouhler, who oversaw the euthanizing of more than 70,000 disabled adults and children, wasn’t likely to be sympathetic. He reached out to a number of German scientists to assess Warburg’s importance before coming to the conclusion that Warburg should be returned to his position. After the war, Warburg said that Bouhler’s chief of staff, Viktor Brack who had directly intervened on his behalf, told him, “I did this not for you or for Germany, but for the world.” As part of the process of reinstating Warburg at his institute, his ancestry was reexamined. Despite his father’s two Jewish parents, Warburg was reclassified as only one-quarter Jewish.
Why the Nazis left Warburg alone is only half of the mystery. The other half is why Warburg stayed when he might have fled in the early 30’s like so many other Jewish scientists. Petra Gentz-Werner, a German scholar who has written books and articles about Warburg is convinced he had no sympathies for the Nazis. Gentz-Werner cites the book written by Warburg’s sister, Lotte, which highlights Warburg’s disgust for the Nazis.
The rest of the narrative picks back up in my published article for The New York Times Magazine.
The Last Word
Finally, because he has done so much to draw attention to the research of Otto Warburg and the metabolic roots of cancer, I was hoping there would be enough space to give Thomas Seyfried the last word on Warburg. Here is the ending I’d used in the longer version of the story, which, even if there had been space, probably would have been inappropriate for The Times:
With respect to his hypothesis that cancer begins with a problem of oxygen consumption, the mainstream scientific community has concluded that Otto Warburg was wrong. But in his recognition that cancer is deeply rooted in how our cells obtain and use energy, Warburg has been redeemed. Or, as Thomas Seyfried of Boston College puts it, “We found out that the son of a bitch is right!”
Afterword by Tim Ferriss
It’s a pleasure to publish Sam’s unpublished writing on this blog, and I suspect it will be widely spread.
If you write — or have written — for major outlets (NYT, WSJ, The Atlantic, etc.) and have feature-length pieces that are unpublished or that have been “killed,” I’d love to hear more about them. My blog, newsletter, podcast, etc. easily reach 10+ million people per month. In addition to Sam’s piece, I frequently publish on the sciences (e.g. unpublished chapters from Gary Taubes), travel, business, and more.
If you fit the above profile and find this interesting, please see this page for reaching out. Thanks for not using this form for any other types of inquiries.
Suggested resources and further reading:
Tripping Over the Truth
Dominic D’Agostino on Fasting, Ketosis, and the End of Cancer
Dr. Peter Attia on Life-Extension, Drinking Jet Fuel, Ultra-Endurance, Human Foie Gras, and More
Optimizing Investing, Blood, Hormones, and Life (see #65)
Potential Tactics for Defeating Cancer — A Toolkit in 1,000 Words
The Tim Ferriss Show is one of the most popular podcasts in the world with more than 900 million downloads. It has been selected for "Best of Apple Podcasts" three times, it is often the #1 interview podcast across all of Apple Podcasts, and it's been ranked #1 out of 400,000+ podcasts on many occasions. To listen to any of the past episodes for free, check out this page.
Comment Rules: Remember what Fonzie was like? Cool. That’s how we’re gonna be — cool. Critical is fine, but if you’re rude, we’ll delete your stuff. Please do not put your URL in the comment text and please use your PERSONAL name or initials and not your business name, as the latter comes off like spam. Have fun and thanks for adding to the conversation! (Thanks to Brian Oberkirch for the inspiration.)
68 Replies to “EXCLUSIVE: Unpublished Material from NYT Magazine Story on Cancer Metabolism”
Good article, thanks!
Ubiquinol supplements (reduced CoQ10) show promise as restoring normal mitochondrial function. Anecdotal evidence suggests that 400mg/day in split doses is extremely helpful for cancer treatment, and that 100mg/day prevents any cancer onset.
I’m not surprised that the NY Times “didn’t have room” for the possibility that a ketogenic diet might treat cancer. They are a sock puppet for the pharmaceutical industry, so low-cost non-pharmaceutical treatments are of course less than desirable.
For another example, I’m interested in vaccine safety, and the NY Times never prints anything that might affect vaccine sales. For example, their review of the movie Vaxxed totally ignored the main point: that the CDC found an association between early MMR-vaccination and autism, and then lied to us about it.
Richard Veech has stated in recent podcast interviews that supplementing with CoQ10 does nothing for mitochondrial function. It is a waste of money. It’s similar to giving an engine a larger fuel tank: the performance does not change. Checkout the interviews with Ben Greenfield and Dave Aspry.
What a great write up… easy to digest! New to all this and certainly uneducated in it, however my curiosity is fired up. Mercola recently touches on the same subject.
People talk about the health benefits of a more “alkaline” body. ie “cancer can’t survive in an alkaline environment”. Do you think it’s possible to create a more alkaline body? Have you looked into anything pertaining to body alkalinity?
During the writing of The 4-Hour Body, I had a medical researcher look at the literature, and we couldn’t find any support for the “acidic” versus “alkaline” foods argument. Perhaps we missed something, but it wasn’t clearly supported.
That’s interesting! I thought Tony Robbins has been teaching people about Alkaline diet at his UPW event for years?
Thanks for your extremely enlightening article (as always)!
Word of caution for what follows : I’m no MD either but I do extensive nutrition and health research.
For the fourhourbody medical research, did you look into the “potential renal acid load” of different foods? It’s actually the effect the food has on the body (creating acidity or not) that is the important aspect, NOT if the food in itself is acidic, neutral or alkaline. I would guess that a more “alkaline body” is healthier, since, for example acid-base homeostasis is intimately related to bone health. There must also be other health benefits of an alkaline body and it would be interesting to do the research.
To answer Brian, it is possible to have a more alkaline body, you need to look up “potential renal acid load” and it can be tested by doing a simple pH test of your urine (usually the first pee of the morning).
True. The body regulates serum pH even more tightly than glucose levels. Serum pH levels are regulated more like body temperature….a very tight range! Urine pH levels increase after the consumption of acidic foods because the kidneys quickly discharge them to maintain pH levels. You cannot change your blood’s pH levels with diet!
did Wim Hoff mention something about his breathing method increasing alkalinity of the body by having more oxygen in the blood stream or am I making that up? #notascientist
the acid alkaline thing ”feels nice”. it’s got a ‘nice vibe’ . but it doesn’t really mean anything. a bit like what Tim describes in 4HB about the erroneous science behind calories, that is still relied upon all these years later – the so called science behind how the acid or alkaline diet and how the acid/ alkaline status of a food is determined, is woolly thinking at best. The body is constantly concerned with monitoring blood Ph levels. It’s extremely important, critical in fact. It is happening already.
The slightest difference in the wrong direction indicates death.
It’s best to think of it as ”don’t eat crap food, eat quality food”.
processed food will disturb your natural balance and create disease. whole food will not. and from there, refine your awareness of what you body needs and relates to and what it reacts and objects to.
thats the better perspective. I mean, coffee is actually valuable and helpful for some people. And poison for others, But according to the A/A diet obviously it is just poison for everybody. Food is not that simple.
But then, mcdonalds is going to be cancer causing poison for everyone regardless. So that makes sense.
Tim has a body-fat orientation with diet, that allows him to eat whatever the hell he wants once a week because he is concerned with fat loss pure and simple, from what I can see (to be general) but unfortunately he doesn’t
get too into lifeforce generating food as an approach, eating for clean blood and conciousness. it’s more
the sports-medical model he seems to advocate (protein powder etc)
Someone recently wrote here that it was the sports medicine idea of ‘the body is a machine’
I don’t personally consider protein powder a food. I don’t think it’s very
good for you. I can understand how it helps with training and fat loss. it’s like a drug in that way. It serves a specific function, has a specific action, with certain side effects. ( My body has huge reactions to it for example and I’m an athlete)
But it’s more in the junk food end of the spectrum as it’s fairly industrialised,compared to whole food. Relatively speaking.
So, if you’re into the acid.alkaline kind of thinking, in terms of
cultivating concsiousness and well being look toward Yogic
perspectives on diet, and Ayurvedya. it’s very expansive to learn about.
But that actual, specific acid alkaline diet
perspective is nonsense. File it alongside the blood type diet for unsubstantiated claims that never die (vampires, as Tim says) decades later and worse yet are actually taught in universitys [cringe
I was surprised to learn that the acid-alkaline theory (one that I had previously accepted as “fact” for years) is probably not true. You might be interested in this podcast that dispels this myth in detail. http://chriskresser.com/dispelling-the-acid-alkaline-myth/
Very thoughtful and provocative article. The one issue i have with studies like this is how a person with a number of symptoms is supposed to make sense of the research.
i have a family history of heart disease, had a triple bypass in 2007, still not sure if it was necessary.After the surgery I found Dr. Esselstyn’s diet which was proven to reverse heart disease (Vegan, no oils). After about 6 years i started to wonder if his diet might be problematic in terms of causing other symptoms like diabetes(there’s no limit on carbs).
Doctors and researchers how push a theory for one disease don’t ever seem to think about how this would interface with other symptoms.
Does the ketogenic diet with its excess of fat have any contraindications for a person with heart disease?
My brother was a firefighter during 9/11. A large proportion of firefighters have developed some kind of cancer since then.
He currently is fighting a virulent form of prostate cancer. I didn’t see any mention of prostate cancer in the research findings.
Any helpful comments? fyi, this is not the type of prostate cancer that is slowly developing.
John, go to the article in the link and scroll down to the comments part. (The article is suggested above.) Some readers were talking about prostate cancer. http://fourhourworkweek.com/2014/01/28/cancer-treatment/
thanks K, great info…empirical evidence is great, it’s always difficult to decide who to listen to and what makes sense.. i sent my brother the info, that’s the best i can do…
Today I got a call my Godfather and dear friend just learned the cancer he thought was beat has come back with a vengence. A month ago a dear friend diagnosed with cancer. One year ago I lost my father to cancer. Both Papa and my padrino are/ were MDs. Your posts on this are so important and for that I thank you as information must be shared.
Gracias que Dios te bendiga
Emilio J Torres-Requena
“But in his recognition that cancer is deeply rooted in how our cells obtain and use energy, Warburg has been redeemed. Or, as Thomas Seyfried of Boston College puts it, “We found out that the son of a bitch is right!”
“Near the end of his life, Warburg grew obsessed with his diet. He believed that most cancer was preventable and thought that chemicals added to food and used in agriculture could cause tumors by interfering with respiration. He stopped eating bread unless it was baked in his own home. He would drink milk only if it came from a special herd of cows, and used a centrifuge at his lab to make his cream and butter.”
I’m not an MD nor do I consider myself an expert on the subject but…
I studied a lot on the subject, read a lot, worked with many people with cancer, other metabolic disorders and it always strikes me how people always are much more eager to take and wait for some kind of silver bullet then to do what is a first logical (logical where I come from) response – change their diet radically excluding all fast sugars, going 100% organic in everything, loading on whole foods with anti-oxidants and anti-inflammatory fats, getting the best quality of water, practicing breathing exercises, do fasting in a facility that is designed for that, work on their mental state (everything is related to mindset in one way or the other), take time off, get enough fresh air, sun, move daily, laugh, get as many positive emotions as possible, rest enough and more – that’s what any animal would do to heal, that what all ancient cultures did – when did we get so blind and “smart” for the obvious?
Your “logical response” makes perfect sense in the absence of the reality of dealing with cancer as a patient. I was diagnosed with squamous cell carcinoma in December of 2012. By April of 2013 I had lost 30 pounds (went from 175 to 145) due to the side effects of cancer treatment (chemo and radiation) and the ravages of the disease itself. The patient generally looks for guidance and hope from his/her medical team and caretakers. They don’t usually have the energy or ambition to conduct research and include logical response activities on their daily “to do” list, which consists primarily of taking medications, sleeping, vomiting, feeling terrible, dealing with depression and hoping for a silver bullet.
My doctor’s told me to eat anything and everything to gain weight, or they were gong to put me on a feeding tube. When you have cancer you don’t have an appetite, food tastes completely different, disgusting or has no taste at all, and will often induce nausea and vomiting. Eating organic, paleo, primal, ketogenic or whatever is hard to prioritize. Fasting however, is not a problem!
I am a huge Tim Ferriss fan, but this topic (cancer treatment/avoidance) is akin to men discussing their experiences with pregnancy and child birth. It is my opinion that credibility here is difficult unless you really understand what it is like to have cancer (physically, mentally and emotionally) and to have experienced the current widespread treatment protocols – flawed and ancient as they may be, and the reliance on your doctor’s advice.
That being said, I appreciate Tim’s ongoing passion around this subject, particularly related to cancer prevention and Create’s logical response theory.
I think you should read what Ty Bollinger has to say about this. Visit his site at The Truth About Cancer. Also google the FDA trial against Dr Burzynski for non-conventionally related treatments that (according to the video testimonies) saw marked remissions in patients. One lady was treated at thirty-four and the cancer returned at seventy. Another treatment was done and four years later she was free again. At seventy-four she testified in a different video (Ty). Apparently patients have an average life expectancy of five years after conventional radiation/chemotherapy. This according to doctors records. Also research laetrile or vitamin B17.
I do not live in America and I do not have any affiliation with any of the people mentioned here.
Ty sells a set of nine DVD’s. The information in the first is of truly shocking nature. Apparently the current situation as related to the FDA and Big Pharma was created by Carnegie and Rockefeller in the very early 1900’s. Homeopathic doctors, of which there were apparently no dearth were sidelined and later ostracised from practising. The information here on Warburg and Seyfried is in resonance with that of othe scientists.
I loved Dr. Attia’s interview- great to hear more on this subject. Do you have any guess as to how much time people need to spend in ketosis to kill off glucose-dependent cancers? Like, would going keto for 2 weeks each year be enough to starve those types of cancer cells, or maybe 1 month out of every 6 months, etc?
First off – thanks for everything you put out. The quality and value of the content is so high and yet you ask little to nothing in return. You have definitely impacted my life for the better — thank you. (Thanks to Sam as well.)
Question: When would you recommend a ketogenic diet over a slow carb diet? Two scenarios it would be great to get your input on:
Scenario 1: 30-50 yo male/female with limited time (for meal prep, exercise, etc.) who is interested in fat loss, body composition and physical performance (particularly as it relates to longevity/quality of life). Assume they read your stuff and have successfully lost 15+ LBs on slow carb already and can manage/maintain it but have struggled to drop the “last 5LBs”. Switch to keto or tweak slow carb?
Scenario 2: Same as above + some family history of cancer (e.g. mother and aunt on the same side of the family but no gene faults identified). [Not sure how to define ‘some’ so defaulted to my own situation – bit self serving but hey it’s my question ;)]
Thanks for sharing this. Also just read the other article from 2014, Potential Tactics for Defeating Cancer, which makes a good base for the current article. I think, overall I have a healthy diet. I drink a lot of tea, etc. I need to make more research about ketogenic diet, as to what to eat and what not to eat. I will try it out.
I wish diet was the only thing that affected cancer. It seems everything we do has some sort of relation to it. This causes cancer, that causes cancer. It is depressing. I read a lot about it. I know there are many false research articles out there now, just click-bait, superficial stuff. I pay attention to real information backed by substantial study. It is said that cancer is inherited genetically 30%. My father passed at 49, his brother passed at 42, both from cancer, but their parents (my grandparents) lived until 95. Their sisters are doing very well too, in their 80s now, one of them smoked her whole life.
We can’t keep worrying about it. We gotta do what we can to the best of our ability to live a healthy life but our first concern should be to enjoy life. Btw, there is a very good Vice episode about cancer. Here is the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlK-PeCfezM&ab_channel=ArtAlexander
All the best xx
Does anyone know if High Dose Ozone treatments would work in a similar way to the HBOT? I am fascinated but High Dose Ozone treatments. There seems to be many positive benefits to oxygenating the body, killing cancer being one of them. But joint health, skin health, immune system strength are just some.
Also, I have been trying to stay on the Ketogenic diet but I have a hard time getting enough fats. Any idea on sources for full diets that might help me with that? I use a ton of Kerry’s Gold, bacon, heavy cream, avocados and olive oil. My recent round of tests are all looking good. Slightly elevated blood sugar.
In any event, keep up this great work. It makes sense to me that diet can be extremely beneficial when trying to prevent or beat cancer. Oxygen too. Wouldn’t it be great if we could address cancer with oxygen and fat?
anything alkalizing… Iboga?!
Very Nice article!! Great post you share with us. Thanks a lot sharing your thoughts, which is very easy to understand for new readers and regular also. and I always curious about Cancer Metabolism!!
After hearing the podcasts with Dom D’Agostino and Peter Attia I started on a ketogenic diet and spent about 5 months in ketosis (confirmed by blood work, circa 0.5-1.5 mmol for 90% of the time, only occasionally dropping out).
After about 4 months I got a lipid panel to test for cholesterol, expecting to see positive results. I got tested about 12 months before my ketosis experiment and my total C was just over 200 mg/dl with no issues with LDL or TG. After ketosis, my total C sky rocketed to 309 mg/dl with LDL at 216, both considered high risk.
This opened a massive can of worms and I spent a lot of time on Peter Attia’s website trying to work out whether this is a problem or not. Apparently Total C and LDL are not the main risk factors and what we should be looking at is the ratios between HDL and Total C and HDL & TG. Fortunately my ratios are awesome as my TG was very low.
Further, apparently it’s the LDL particle size which is the most important indicator of risk, and, as per Peter Attia’s view point, there are 5 factors which contribute to metabolic syndrome risk, of which high LDL is one. Particle size is almost impossible for me to get tested (I live in Dubai) but I had ApoB measured and it came in at 130 which is ok (I think; Peter Attia suggests 109 is ideal so I’m not too far off that).
I’m a pretty healthy, fit 40 year old so I don’t have any other concerns, however, I heard somewhere (I believe it was Peter Attia on Rhonda Patrick’s podcast) that anyone with LDL over something like 200 is a candidate for statins.
Moreover, Rhonda Patrick recently shared on another podcast that a gene expression (Apo4 I think) can cause problems with the metabolism of saturated fat resulting in high cholesterol. As I recall, this was also ratified by Dom D’Agostino who suggested that this affects about 20% of people who start on a ketogenic diet.
The benefits I experienced in ketosis are unquestionable, specifically, enhanced cognitive ability; and, the emerging evidence about the anti-cancer benefits are extremely appealing so I really want to stick with it. The issue is that there doesn’t seem to be any recommendations out there about managing the risk of high C so it’s quite worrying.
Has anyone out there experienced this and does anyone have any advice?
Thanks- Tripping Over the Truth was easily the most interesting book I read in 2015. Really appreciate you dogging this stuff.
I’ve had Tripping Over the Truth on my “to read” list for a while after Travis Christofferson was on Robb Wolf’s podcast. This might have moved it up a few spaces. Thanks!
Tim, in science there’s a whole world that’s left unexplored. Thiamine, caffeine, aspirin, niacinamide have all been shown to reverse various types of cancers. If you look into why they do, you’ll see that they correct the underlying disfunction of cellular oxidation to promote an oxidative metabolism. You’ll see that they reduce lactate, increase the NAD/NADH ratio and produce higher amounts of systemic CO2. When you begin to go down this rabbit hole, you’ll see that medicine is based on an incorrect model of the cell. The “pump and membrane” model is wrong. Checkout the work and experiments of Gilbert Ling that provides a more accurate model of the cell.
This article inspired me to write an email for my office, friends and family. Thank you, Tim Ferris, for inspiring me to live an Experimental Lifestyle and for your work on improving lives:
THIS MAY CHANGE (OR SAVE) YOUR LIFE
This may not be as pithy as I’d like, but it’s important. Disclaimer: Science is constantly changing. The sun revolves around the earth. No, the earth revolves around the sun. Eat margarine, not butter. Fat is bad for you. No, wait. Butter is better. Fat is good. Multivitamins are great for you. Actually too many may cause cancer. And on and on and on… So, I acknowledge we don’t know everything, obviously, about fasting and some of this is anecdotal, but the body of evidence is building and the case studies are oh-so-compelling. If you’d like take a moment and read about my journey.
As many of you know, in my faith (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) we fast once a month, no food or drink for 24 hours. It’s for spiritual purposes. Control over carnal desires. Subject the body to the spirit. Do it with a focused purpose. Etc. Consequentially, fasting is something I have decades of experience with. I then went to Brazil. We walked 15-18 miles a day in 90-110+ degree weather. Fasting there was haaaard. When I came home post-Brazil and was spoiled with modern conveniences like AC and blessed with overcast skies and cool Rocky Mountain air fasting was a snap in comparison. Sometimes I just wouldn’t eat because eating is an inconvenience, like sleeping. A time drain. And it wasn’t hard. I didn’t need food as much as I had thought.
Then came The 4-Hour Body and I found myself eating and drinking calories until I was sick following the Geek to Freak protocol. The result? 13 pounds of muscle in 4 weeks during a total weight lifting time of 2 hours. Sustainability? Zero. Fat gain: 4 pounds. So, I went back to The 4-Hour Body’s Slow Carb Diet maintaining the famed Cheat Day. Diet for 6 days and eat whatever you want for 1. Post cheat day, though, I would always fast. Just felt like the right thing to do. Plus, I wanted to trick my metabolism. Slow carbs 6 days. Tons of carbs 1 day. Then no carbs. Keep it pumping. I then noticed if I fasted before and/or after eating higher carb and/or less healthy meals I could minimize fat gain. That really got me interested and I began experimenting with eating only during a specific window of time each day and have continued ever since for, nearly 3 years now. During times of binging on trips or holiday eating I’ve experienced no perceptible fat gain (Bill and Mark have seen me at work and it’s impressive). Eating a healthy base, plus what I want after, preceded and followed by fasting. I have set personal records in the weight room on 60 hours with nothing but water. I’ve had career highlight performances on the basketball court at 24 and 48 hours with nothing but H2O. But that’s nothing compared to what others have done and seen and concluded:
– Four years ago Dr. Mosley reversed his pre-diabetic indicators by eating 600 calories 2 days a week and eating whatever he wanted the other 5
– Jack’s friend Bryce is using diet as key component of several to astound the medical field holding off his very advanced and once aggressive cancer. After feeling like he literally would die post his first chemo treatment he heard that if you fasted for 72 hours prior you would feel much better. He tried it. He woke up expecting to feel horrible. Instead, he spent the day surfing.
– Hugh Jackman presented one of the most impressive onscreen physiques ever as the X-Men’s Wolverine. How’d he get there? Working his butt off in the weight room and…Intermittent Fasting.
– Then I listened to Tim Ferris interview Dom D’Agostino on Fasting, Ketosis and the end of Cancer. He says at some point we all have pre-cancerous cells. Science knows this. They are alive. It’s like chemotherapy or radiation. The goal is to kill the cancer cells without killing the patient. Well, what do they live on? He believes it’s glycogen. Carbohydrates. In a ketogenic diet your body gets its energy from ketone bodies, soluble fat. So fast or go ketogenic and your body produces ketone bodies so it has energy while the cancers cells starve to death.
– Finally, today Tim Ferris published the unpublished material from the NYT Magazine Story An Old Idea Revived: Starve Cancer to Death. In short, Otto Warburg, perhaps the greatest biochemist of the 20th century (studying chemistry that takes place within the body), a Jewish man allowed to live in Nazi Germany because of his work on cancer, something that terrified Hitler, discovered in 1924 that maybe glucose was the life bread of cancer cells.
Take it all with a grain of salt (or a lump of butter). I’m just a sales wonk. But it makes sense to me and as one who adheres to an Experimental Lifestyle I’ve personally experienced some amazing and fascinating things with fasting. Remember, it will be hard. When your body is transitioning to longer periods without food you may feel terrible. Just push through and it will adjust and the end result will be a sustainable way to eat because when you’re fasting there are no hard decisions about what to put in your body.
not sure but seems like you might have missed an important researcher Max Gerson. Gerson Therapy is looked down on here in the states, but has documented cases of healing people from cancer.
A friend recently told me that once we have cancer, our body has lost the fight and Western medicine is the only solution giving me Steve Jobs as an example. Yet, with the rate at which people are being diagnosed with cancer (an estimated 1.6 million new cases in the U.S. in 2016) and diabetes and other diseases on the rise, what about food and lifestyle choices? What about preventative measures?
I like this idea of starving cancer, as Dr. William Li speaks about in his TED talk about anti-angiogenesis and the list of foods that do this effectively, ie tea, strawberries, turmeric etc — you speak about this in a previous post as well.
If there is not already a cure for cancer–there are people who advocate there are through food–we will find a cure. There are already people living longer with cancer. But is living longer with cancer and paying hundreds of thousands of dollars on drugs and treatments a realistic solution? Is this really the best we can do?
I wish there was a post about how to tell people that their Dr. may not be telling them the full story. Maybe there’s a little programming going on here…
I wish I knew how to, effectively, get people to question norms without having to dose them with entheogens.
Tim-fascinating post. Given the focus on ketosis and cellular activity that some of the researchers you profiled are working with, I wondered if any of them had also looked at H2 receptors which are primarily in the gastrointestinal tract and at the possibility that genomic expressions in them and the cells they bind too could have a role/impact on cellular activity in cancer cells and ketogenic diets. My daughter has melanoma and a strange conversation with one of her doctors recently made me wonder if there was a relationship between H2 and cancer. I did some research and found some studies that showed that H2 blockers caused tumor suppression or remission in some cancers to include melanoma.
Since this is a subject you care deeply about have you read “The China Study” (a book by T. Colin Campbell, Jacob Gould Schurman Professor Emeritus of Nutritional Biochemistry at Cornell University, and his son Thomas M. Campbell II, a physician) ?
Would love to hear your thoughts on going on a whole food plant based diet – getting rid of animal proteins entirely.
During the 4Hours Body did you explore that area?
From what I have experienced so far eating that way does give you a lot more energy throughout the days.
The website for Four Hour Body has a page called Bonuses with a bunch of articles that didnt make it into the book. Theres a strong critique of the china study there, explaining why it’s bad science.
Thanks will check it ou!
Thanks will check it out!
Edit: Here is the link for people looking for it: https://fhww.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/spotting-bad-science-103-the-china-study.pdf
Jesse Lawler (of Smart Drug Smarts podcast) has started a Water Fast Week aimed at taking advantage of this. A bunch of us haven’t eaten since Saturday, and won’t until Sunday.
[Moderator: link removed]
Found the articles you linked to on artificial sweeteners raising blood sugar very interesting. Do you know if Stevia compounds (stevioside and rebaudioside or others) have been studied in the same way and, if so, have the same effect?
Any consideration to study Atkins diet devotees as to cancer occurrence?
I just bought a couple of your books, one being the 4-hour body and although I haven’t read it in it’s entirety, I’m having trouble finding your recipe for a breakfast protein shake. The index shows the recipe to be on page 261, however, the recipe is not there. I’m having difficulty consuming 30 grams of protein in the morning and there are only so many eggs I can eat within a week. I don’t know the first thing about protein powders so the selection process is overwhelming…what should I be looking for in a meal replacement and is there somewhere else I can find the breakfast recipe?
Thanks very much for sharing this. I have read Seyfried’s book as well as Tripping Over the Truth. After doing so, I am mystified as to why there has not been more progress with testing 3BP and other non toxic small molecules mentioned by Seyfried as chemotherapeutic agents. I understand that big pharma will not pay for studies on molecules that it cannot patent, but there are so many wealthy people and foundations where the benefactors may well eventually develop cancer, that I would think someone would have stepped up by now. You are connected enough in the wealthy tech founder/life extension community that you could play a role in pushing this forward. I know I would certainly make a donation to support this work. Thanks, David Golob
I think you are spot on in your befuddlement as to why 3bp and other small molecules that have shown synergy with a restricted version of the ketogenic diet have yet to be noticed by philanthropists. My little modest, but brave foundation, has/is funding studies combining metabolic therapies. Currently we are testing: keto + oxaloacetate + HBOT + 2dg + DON + exogenous ketones + 3bp +Chloroquine + lonidamine in a metastatic mouse model. Fingers crossed, we think this cocktail has a reasonable chance of moving the needle. There is no way the NIH would fund a study like this with so many compounds at once because they requires mechanistic data for each compound together—putting a straight jacket around bold efforts. But this sort of protocol is rationally designed from known drugs with low toxicity and targets, many overlapping cancer patheways, and probabilistically seems the right stragety. One thing we know for sure, after 100 + years of clinical research, this disease will most likely never be beaten by a single magic bullet, and that combinations can be extremely powerful.
Do you have idea when these studies will be published?. Thanks
This is so fascinating. I wonder, because the pancreas and insulin production seems to be such a vital part of this, is that why pancreatic cancer has the lowest survival rate? What can we do for someone who has pancreatic cancer? I have had a brother and dear friend, both of who have not been able to battle this disease with success. But I wonder if there is some sort of correlation?
” Black Salve ” cures skin cancer rapidly
B17 and Laetrile ( i believe a drug version of B17) also are proven to cure cancer
These are exciting, innovative and reliable therapies the FDA and other organisations have worked hard to oppress
Iodine in the right form, administered in the correct way, is also vital for curing cancer.
It’s one of the most basic elements in our biology and in the universe but doctors of course don’t even know if you ask them
there is a different perspective, once explained to me, I can’t fully recall, but the basic premise is that a tumour is a GOOD thing. It is the bodies way of dealing with the cancer / toxicity. The body concentrates the toxins or cancer in one spot so it can be dealt with or processed. Cutting out the tumour is not helpful – it’s the worst thing you can do – because then the body has to go and make another tumour somewhere else. this obviously requires a different perspective to what we are taught.
It’s a wholistic perspective – don’t treat a symptom, don’t treat a disease – treat the person. Create an environment of wellness. The tumour will then dissolve and be eliminated when the body doesn’t need it anymore
If the water in your fishtank is poisoned and your fish are dying.
You don’t try and put stuff in the water to fix it, to clean it or whatever.
You change the water.
You change the terrain
Louis Pasteurs germ theory is incorrect. But it was sieized as being a vital answer at the time for political, financial and other reasons unrelated to actually curing people. It’s not the germ, not the atom, it’s the whole picture we need to look at. it’s the TERRAIN.
A contemporary of Pasteur was advocating TERRAIN (changing the water in the fish tank) but he was discredited. I can’t recall his name
Pasteur actually renounced his germ theory on his death bed and
acknowledged that his colleague was correct in espousing terrain as the approach to wellness
This was ignored by those whom wished to extend his germ theory
Now we have hospitals giving people radiation tablets 🙁
Hi Tim, awesome reading as per…but this freaks me out a little about my BINGE DAYS!!! Would you recommend limiting the sugar intake (I’ll get through a packet of chocolate covered oat biscuits in between pizza, pasta, full English fry ups, etc) and instead eating fattier foods for the caloric spike instead?
P.S – Just purchased the Tim Ferris Experiment…blowing my mind!!! I’m spreading the word – my students are now hooked!
Thanks, D.P.S, U.K
Am I correct in assuming that the 1994 in “Nazi Germany in 1994” was a typo and should be 1934?
Pendantry aside, this is a great article and I found Warburg’s history particularly fascinating.
Fixed! Thanks for the catch.
Echoing Damien’s comment- great article. That and the links had me so engrossed I almost missed my BART stop last night. I actually grabbed the NYT magazine when I saw the cover several Sundays ago, wondering if there’d be an article on this subject matter, was pleased to see it but it “felt” like things were missing (one quote from D’Agostino kind of by itself in the wilderness, very little if anything about much of the other current work going on, etc.), so it was great to read the extra content. Thanks again.
I’m a massive fan of ketosis, however, I experienced elevated cholesterol after about 4 months to ‘high risk’ levels. After doing a tonne of research, especially on Peter Attia’s site, I understand that the conventional way of measuring cholesterol is a bit erroneous and what we should be looking at are ratios between HDL and Total C, HDL & TG, as well as ApoB and LDL particle size.
I’m generally a very healthy eater (no refined carbs, no refined sugar), very fit and active so I’m not overly concerned, however, I heard somewhere (I believe it was Peter Attia on Rhonda Patrick’s podcast) that anyone with LDL over something like 200 is a candidate for statins.
Moreover, Rhonda Patrick recently shared on another podcast that a gene expression (Apo4 I think) can cause problems with the metabolism of saturated fat resulting in high cholesterol. As I recall, this was also ratified by Dom D’Agostino who suggested that this affects about 20% of people who start on a ketogenic diet.
The issue is that there doesn’t seem to be any recommendations out there about managing the risk of high C so it’s quite worrying. Also, I live in Dubai and the level of expertise in this field with GPs is negligible and I’ve already been advised to go on statins and adopt a low fat diet!
Has anyone out there experienced this and does anyone have any advice?
The best test for CHD risk is a Calcium Heart Score. If the score is zero there is no reason to worry about cholesterol as a risk factor. That said, I have read of ketogenic dieters getting the numbers “normalized” by reducing dairy and nuts. Dom D’Agostino has said in podcasts that he needs to watch his own dairy and nut consumption. Here is a good presentation on the tool by Ivor Cummings: https://goo.gl/ABT0c5
I have leukemia. Wondering how or if Gerson diet recommendations fit into all the recommendations in the above article? Really interested in a response either way.
Unfortunately I find this to be a complete misrepresentation on the current data. There are hundreds of promising areas of research just as hopeful as this in the cancer world and touting one as public article ready before any meaningful human studies have been published is irresponsible at best. For a great rundown of the actual evidence see science based medicine. https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/ketogenic-diets-for-cancer-hype-versus-science/#more-32073
Great article as usual Tim. I have read a lot on cancer, and may even have it myself now, final test results not in yet. But there was nothing about the MIND. Our thought process and what we believe will affect our health. Repressed anger, negative beliefs, bad attitudes etc. The cancer field is always looking outside the body to find the cause. Maybe looking inside is where the answer lies. But where would the profit come from?
LSD can change the perception of an individual. What if it could eliminate the negative beliefs and that in turn healed the cancer? Psychedelics heal cancer? Maybe not so far fetched.
I Flipped a HP article, “Vegan Food and Vegetarian Diets Linked to Good Health,” //flip.it/U96.3, and shoot it to you for some thought as it 180’s what I agree with and undersand and you put in The 4HB.
BTW, I put strength practices you share in T4HB for some positive gains in strength and endurance with my soccer players. Thanks for the awareness and tips. tips .
My wife and I have become big fans of your podcasts just listened to the gutsy girl podcast really good.
I do have a suggestion you should see if you can get Paul Howe for an interview former delta force guy who was in Somalia (black hawk down). He wrote a very good book on leadership very interesting guy.
Keep up the good work great stuff learned a lot from these podcasts, fun too.
In terms even I can understand … Worked with some south Africans on a non-pressurized oxygen delivery system in 2000, and ran across Warburg’s research then. Basically cells swap from fueling with oxygen to fueling via fermentation. So they want sugar, low PaO2, and an acidic environment. Deny them!
Ralph Moss, a medical journalist, has been writing about traditional and non-traditional cancer treatments (valid and invalid) for decades. He is well-published, has the credentials and is an engaging speaker (that I heard many years ago). I have no personal or professional connection to him, but would highly recommend looking him up if you have any interest in cancer or cancer treatments.
Sounds similar to the benefits of increasing oxygen Wim Hof was talking about with his breathing method back in podcast #103. Have you done any more investigation along these lines?
I started practicing his method and whilst I’m not sick in any way nor do I have the desire to swim in ice cold water like he does, I do certainly feel a lot better during the day if I practice his breathing method in the morning.
THRILL SEEKER. My comments aren’t article related but more in general RE your content / technology. With all the accolades you’ve received, traffic and phenomenal quality of your guest speakers … its fair to say that you offer a treasure trove of information – virtual gold mine, the best there is. And its only going to GROW, faster. It would be great if you could take a page out of the Ted Talks site and offer some similar technology features for your listeners — a way to manage all the content with favorites, thumbnails, categories etc., and even better if you went to video option for podcasts. INVEST in yourself. you know, for Us!! ;-))
Thanks Tim, Dr Attia, and Sam. Can’t WAIT for more unpublished journalist submissions on this blog!
a recent book – don’t have the title handy – unequivocally demonstrates the statistics by the census in the US and also worldwide, that the number 1 , cause of mortality is medical intervention (aka doctors aka hospitals).
statistics are a funny beast as we know but it’s recorded in black and white. doctors are the leading cause of death in the world.
So, essentially, if you are diagnosed with cancer, the most likely way to ensure you die is to accept oncological treatment.
This is already well examined with HIV. The best thing you can do is refuse drug treatment for HIV. You are definitely going to die, if you take the drugs. There is a long list of world class experts in a variety of related fields all saying HIV is a really ordinary retrovirus, that there is not proof AIDS exists, that there is no link between HIV and AIDS, there was no proper science supporting it (As is required for any other official and serious discovery) before it blew up into a big media issue, and that a really big political and economic cauldron created the mess that is the HIV industry today. There was NO reason for it to become the pandemic we know it to be. No one had to die.
to this day you will not find the science, and the cold hard facts in daylight, demonstrating that HIV and AIDS actually exist and do harm in the way we believe. You really should read more about this.
It’s a funny twist isn’t it. We think of cancer and HIV as being these scary scary disease. But what if we only have that experience, because the outcomes depend upon medical intervention.
What if, you accept that okay the diagnosis is cancer, you ignore everything the doctors tell you – and instead of living for 12 months in pain you live another 10 years quite happily.
Or, you intervene with your own treatments and live another 50 years with no cancer
Searched here, and couldnt find info on your current fasting experiments. I thought I heard you describe it in another podcast as a 2 day fast once a month, but wanted to verify that. Was that correct? Or is it a 1 day fast? Thanks
Very excited to read this article!
I’m hoping you could potentially provide some advice…
The research around diets, metabolism and cancer is fascinating, though it concerns me that this is not ‘mainstream’ when looking at treatment for cancer.
As such, I would like to start making more people aware of this and help raise funds for further research on this specific topic. Though, i have no idea where to start.
My thoughts were; to use Social Media (Instagram/Twitter), to build links with certain cancer charities and perhaps organisations such as Low Carb Down Under (i’m based in Sydney). I’m not sure if there are certain charities that would specifically fund this type of research?
Following your discussions with Drs Peter Attia and Dom D’Agonstino, i have become pretty obsessed with Ketosis and the health benefits thereof.
Any guidance or ideas would be much appreciated!
Hi Tim, everyone. Is there any information on how to lower IGF-1 with diet. I suffer from acromegaly (high GH levels resulting in very high IGF-1 levels) and while getting frontline medical treatment want to see if ketogenic diet can help in any way.
Love this article! Definitely passing it on. Is there a diet or treatment that helps heal concussions too?