8 ms·

Can I just throw a big dose of caution here? This is a review study, looking at the available literature of this technique on cancer. They found a total of FIVE

Can I just throw a big dose of caution here? This is a review study, looking at the available literature of this technique on cancer. They found a total of FIVE studies with 88 total human participants across all 5 studies. We, the medical community, still has no idea whether this is effective or not. The only thing we can say is that initial trials don't show it to be particularly harmful. That could change with more data. They review a lot of mice studies and theory, which is great. But all this adds together to indicate that we should study this more before drawing any conclusions. With limited funding for cancer research, its not even clear to me from this what priority it should take

epmaybe 7y ago
What do you mean limited funding? Seems like there's a TON of funding for cancer research right now, given the moonshot campaign (extra $1.8B over 7 years). It's hard to study something like this, because you have to find a large enough population for the statistics to work out, but also keep the study going long enough without massive attrition (would have to do intent-to-treat) to have results worth publishing.
- Merrill 7y ago
  There is probably limited funding for this because even if it is true, it will not result in a large stream of revenue for anyone. In fact, if it works it might reduce some health industry organizations' revenues.
  - ggg3 7y ago
    it's on effectiveness of chemo...
wavepruner 7y ago
I really don't get the excessive warnings of caution for fasting. It's not hard to try. It's not very dangerous (unless doing prolonged fasts). In the case of prolonged fasts, if the patient is monitored by qualified people then there is little risk as well. I'm battling a crippling illness. Fortunately I've found the cure and the recovery is nothing short of miraculous. But it's a huge HUGE uphill battle because the medical community works incredibly hard to throw road blocks in my way. Why does the medical community work so hard to throw up as many road blocks as possible to experimental treatments that are low risk? Why do you insist on being the only group of people who can say what is and isn't tried? Why do doctors and public health officials ignore the work of biochemists? Why do you ignore millions of people battling crippling illness that say your treatments are ineffective, and that other approaches are more effective? Seriously. I don't get it. I don't believe you're a bad person, but the only explanations I can come up with are arrogance, ego, cowardice, or greed.
- chiefalchemist 7y ago
  > "Why does the medical community work so hard to throw up as many road blocks as possible to experimental treatments that are low risk?" Well, at least in the fasting, it's a complete break with tradition. No scripts. No Big Pharma outfit marketing it. Etc. My feelimg is, many doctors are wired to want to take action. The idea of something as simple as "I want you to fast every other" is completely foreign to them.
  - PowerfulWizard 7y ago
    Another issue is compliance. If a doctor could say: eat 2000 calories a day and break a sweat for 30 minutes, and expect people to do it, the general population would look totally different.
    - chiefalchemist 7y ago
      Compliance isn't the issue. Food Inc. marketing is. As is, humans naturally assimilate to "the norm." As the waistline of the norm increase, the waistline of the norm increases. A doctor's words lose meaning when all other inputs say "Don't worry about it. You're just like everyone else." Long to short, what used to save us, is now doing us in.
- Apotheos 7y ago
  What do you have? If you don't mind me asking.
  - wavepruner 7y ago
    I don't want to bring it up here because sometimes it invites a deluge of downvotes. If you go back through my older posts you'll find it. There's not that many.
- robocat 7y ago
  I don't see how your response relates to the GP's comment, and your comment ends with a personal attack. Also, you may have found a solution to your problem, but you are implying to me that you believe it is the one-true solution (rather than doing a scientific trial of solutions upon yourself, and saying "this works for me" and is worth trying).
aaron695 7y ago
> Can I just throw a big dose of caution here? No, this works both ways, the caution also applies to not doing it. This is pretty much the anti-science 'precautionary principle' Unless you have an underling reason not to do it, which you might but you should discuss if you do, then this is bad advice.

epmaybe 7y ago

What do you mean limited funding? Seems like there's a TON of funding for cancer research right now, given the moonshot campaign (extra $1.8B over 7 years). It's hard to study something like this, because you have to find a large enough population for the statistics to work out, but also keep the study going long enough without massive attrition (would have to do intent-to-treat) to have results worth publishing.

Merrill 7y ago
There is probably limited funding for this because even if it is true, it will not result in a large stream of revenue for anyone. In fact, if it works it might reduce some health industry organizations' revenues.
- ggg3 7y ago
  it's on effectiveness of chemo...

wavepruner 7y ago

I really don't get the excessive warnings of caution for fasting. It's not hard to try. It's not very dangerous (unless doing prolonged fasts). In the case of prolonged fasts, if the patient is monitored by qualified people then there is little risk as well. I'm battling a crippling illness. Fortunately I've found the cure and the recovery is nothing short of miraculous. But it's a huge HUGE uphill battle because the medical community works incredibly hard to throw road blocks in my way. Why does the medical community work so hard to throw up as many road blocks as possible to experimental treatments that are low risk? Why do you insist on being the only group of people who can say what is and isn't tried? Why do doctors and public health officials ignore the work of biochemists? Why do you ignore millions of people battling crippling illness that say your treatments are ineffective, and that other approaches are more effective? Seriously. I don't get it. I don't believe you're a bad person, but the only explanations I can come up with are arrogance, ego, cowardice, or greed.

chiefalchemist 7y ago
> "Why does the medical community work so hard to throw up as many road blocks as possible to experimental treatments that are low risk?" Well, at least in the fasting, it's a complete break with tradition. No scripts. No Big Pharma outfit marketing it. Etc. My feelimg is, many doctors are wired to want to take action. The idea of something as simple as "I want you to fast every other" is completely foreign to them.
- PowerfulWizard 7y ago
  Another issue is compliance. If a doctor could say: eat 2000 calories a day and break a sweat for 30 minutes, and expect people to do it, the general population would look totally different.
  - chiefalchemist 7y ago
    Compliance isn't the issue. Food Inc. marketing is. As is, humans naturally assimilate to "the norm." As the waistline of the norm increase, the waistline of the norm increases. A doctor's words lose meaning when all other inputs say "Don't worry about it. You're just like everyone else." Long to short, what used to save us, is now doing us in.
Apotheos 7y ago
What do you have? If you don't mind me asking.
- wavepruner 7y ago
  I don't want to bring it up here because sometimes it invites a deluge of downvotes. If you go back through my older posts you'll find it. There's not that many.
robocat 7y ago
I don't see how your response relates to the GP's comment, and your comment ends with a personal attack. Also, you may have found a solution to your problem, but you are implying to me that you believe it is the one-true solution (rather than doing a scientific trial of solutions upon yourself, and saying "this works for me" and is worth trying).

aaron695 7y ago

> Can I just throw a big dose of caution here? No, this works both ways, the caution also applies to not doing it. This is pretty much the anti-science 'precautionary principle' Unless you have an underling reason not to do it, which you might but you should discuss if you do, then this is bad advice.