3 ms·

Can someone explain to me what is exactly meant by starvation in the article? Does it means that you don't go without any food for a number a days? Restrict you

by rip747 12y ago

Can someone explain to me what is exactly meant by starvation in the article? Does it means that you don't go without any food for a number a days? Restrict your calorie in take to only 600 throughout the day? Only eat a single meal at night while fasting throughout the day? There really any specifics that I can see.

stoicy 12y ago
I don't have any authority to comment what they mean in this particular article, but I have studied the issue quite a bit. So I give you my own world view, whatever it's worth. To get a quick therapeutic effect of starvation, the starvation has to endure several days. During that time the patient drinks water and doesn't ingest any calories at all. There are no exact rules, but after about 4 days the therapeutic effects kick into action, and about 7 days is the maximum. After that the starvation starts to make more harm than good. This is not easy for a normal person accustomed to a western diet, let alone for someone going through chemotherapy. For someone who already eats correctly (see my other comment in this thread) it's not such a big deal. But then again, you don't see those people on cancer wards as patients too often. As the saying goes, the best way to beat cancer is not to get one. And for that intermittent fasting is outstanding. In practice it means you eat one or two large portions of food a day. Between the last one of today and the first one of tomorrow should be about 16 hours, give or take. This gives you constant daily beneficial effects of fasting, and once you get accustomed to it and eat the right food, it feels great. Some recommend a couple of 4-6 days fastings a year on top of this. It's a piece of cake for someone who has practiced such eating habits for some time.
- barry-cotter 12y ago
  >For someone who already eats correctly (see my other comment in this thread) it's not such a big deal. But then again, you don't see those people on cancer wards as patients too often. There are plenty of people on cancer wards who had perfectly healthy diets. Most of them are old, because cancer and cardiovascular disease are both primarily diseases of age. There are also cancers like brain cancer, most of which just show up because you were unlucky, not because of any environmental or genetic risk factor. Finally there are plenty of cancers that run in the family like, oh, breast cancer. So there are tons of people on cancer wards who ate perfectly healthy diets. Yours, with codial loathing
  - stoicy 12y ago
    You and I probably disagree on what is a "perfectly healthy diet". But I fully agree with you that whatever the diet, it does not give exactly 100 % immunity for cancer. There are a minority of cancer types that seem to have quite normal cellular metabolism. It's unclear whether diet affects them as much as it affects most cancers such as breast cancer. I also disagree with you that cancer is primarily a disease of age (or ageing). Age is a contributing factor because the longer one lives, the larger the integral of the contributing effects are. Cancer usually takes quite a long time to form and develop so bad that it starts to cause symptoms. I agree with you that my tone was too harsh. This is a dear subject for me, and I seldom argue about it, because it's so frustrating. I really have no clue why so much hostility arises around this and dieting in general. Maybe because it's so personal and important for all of us. And so, so hard to study by changing only one variable at a time. So sorry about my harsh tone. Didn't mean to guilt any cancer patients.
- rfrey 12y ago
  > But then again, you don't see those people on cancer wards as patients too often. This comment makes it seem like you believe the majority, maybe even the large majority, of cancers are caused exclusively by poor diet.
  - stoicy 12y ago
    Should I get cancer I would instantly take today's cancer treatments and not rely on diet. After all, if I do get cancer and it is a metabolic disease affected by diet, then my idea of the correct diet is wrong by definition. I wouldn't expect it to cure the disease it just caused. "Exclusively" is a tad too strong, but other than that what you said is exactly what I believe. And it's not only a belief, it's based on research and evidence that's publicly available. To my best knowledge cancer reasearch by and large is off tracks, and it's the aberrant metabolism of cancer cells (which has been known for decades and is not controversial, even PET scanners operate on that principle) that should be studied more. And that's highly linked to diet as well. I'm more interested in not getting cancer in the first place, and here I believe diet is the key. I know there are many people who died of cancer and thought the same way, but then again, I operate on the logic I stated in the first paragraph. I expect more evidence starts popping up during the years and decades ahead. The results of mainstream ideology are not at all convincing, and to me it seems hard evidence supports the metabolic theory.
debacle 12y ago
"During the first 10 hours of starvation, when the body utilizes any consumed food, stored glycogen becomes the main source of energy. When liver glycogen stores deplete, amino acids act as a source of energy. Eventually fatty acids and glycerol from adipose tissue serve as a major source of energy. If starvation continues for a week or more, fat derived β-hydroxybutyrate becomes the most abundant ketone in body while glucose production becomes very low. When fat stores are depleted rapid muscle degradation occurs and provides energy to the body through gluconeogenesis. Weight loss caused by starvation is initially intense and rapid but eventually becomes gradual. A study has shown that during the first week of starvation average weight loss is 0.9kg/day and reduces to 0.3kg/day by the third week." You should probably try reading the article, since the entire thing deals with the science of fasting and starvation and they talk about everything from intermittent fasting to multi-week starvation diets. 72 hour fasts, alternate day fasting, and IF provide the greatest return for the least physiological cost (in that order).

by rip747 12y ago

stoicy 12y ago

I don't have any authority to comment what they mean in this particular article, but I have studied the issue quite a bit. So I give you my own world view, whatever it's worth. To get a quick therapeutic effect of starvation, the starvation has to endure several days. During that time the patient drinks water and doesn't ingest any calories at all. There are no exact rules, but after about 4 days the therapeutic effects kick into action, and about 7 days is the maximum. After that the starvation starts to make more harm than good. This is not easy for a normal person accustomed to a western diet, let alone for someone going through chemotherapy. For someone who already eats correctly (see my other comment in this thread) it's not such a big deal. But then again, you don't see those people on cancer wards as patients too often. As the saying goes, the best way to beat cancer is not to get one. And for that intermittent fasting is outstanding. In practice it means you eat one or two large portions of food a day. Between the last one of today and the first one of tomorrow should be about 16 hours, give or take. This gives you constant daily beneficial effects of fasting, and once you get accustomed to it and eat the right food, it feels great. Some recommend a couple of 4-6 days fastings a year on top of this. It's a piece of cake for someone who has practiced such eating habits for some time.

barry-cotter 12y ago
>For someone who already eats correctly (see my other comment in this thread) it's not such a big deal. But then again, you don't see those people on cancer wards as patients too often. There are plenty of people on cancer wards who had perfectly healthy diets. Most of them are old, because cancer and cardiovascular disease are both primarily diseases of age. There are also cancers like brain cancer, most of which just show up because you were unlucky, not because of any environmental or genetic risk factor. Finally there are plenty of cancers that run in the family like, oh, breast cancer. So there are tons of people on cancer wards who ate perfectly healthy diets. Yours, with codial loathing
- stoicy 12y ago
  You and I probably disagree on what is a "perfectly healthy diet". But I fully agree with you that whatever the diet, it does not give exactly 100 % immunity for cancer. There are a minority of cancer types that seem to have quite normal cellular metabolism. It's unclear whether diet affects them as much as it affects most cancers such as breast cancer. I also disagree with you that cancer is primarily a disease of age (or ageing). Age is a contributing factor because the longer one lives, the larger the integral of the contributing effects are. Cancer usually takes quite a long time to form and develop so bad that it starts to cause symptoms. I agree with you that my tone was too harsh. This is a dear subject for me, and I seldom argue about it, because it's so frustrating. I really have no clue why so much hostility arises around this and dieting in general. Maybe because it's so personal and important for all of us. And so, so hard to study by changing only one variable at a time. So sorry about my harsh tone. Didn't mean to guilt any cancer patients.
rfrey 12y ago
> But then again, you don't see those people on cancer wards as patients too often. This comment makes it seem like you believe the majority, maybe even the large majority, of cancers are caused exclusively by poor diet.
- stoicy 12y ago
  Should I get cancer I would instantly take today's cancer treatments and not rely on diet. After all, if I do get cancer and it is a metabolic disease affected by diet, then my idea of the correct diet is wrong by definition. I wouldn't expect it to cure the disease it just caused. "Exclusively" is a tad too strong, but other than that what you said is exactly what I believe. And it's not only a belief, it's based on research and evidence that's publicly available. To my best knowledge cancer reasearch by and large is off tracks, and it's the aberrant metabolism of cancer cells (which has been known for decades and is not controversial, even PET scanners operate on that principle) that should be studied more. And that's highly linked to diet as well. I'm more interested in not getting cancer in the first place, and here I believe diet is the key. I know there are many people who died of cancer and thought the same way, but then again, I operate on the logic I stated in the first paragraph. I expect more evidence starts popping up during the years and decades ahead. The results of mainstream ideology are not at all convincing, and to me it seems hard evidence supports the metabolic theory.

debacle 12y ago

"During the first 10 hours of starvation, when the body utilizes any consumed food, stored glycogen becomes the main source of energy. When liver glycogen stores deplete, amino acids act as a source of energy. Eventually fatty acids and glycerol from adipose tissue serve as a major source of energy. If starvation continues for a week or more, fat derived β-hydroxybutyrate becomes the most abundant ketone in body while glucose production becomes very low. When fat stores are depleted rapid muscle degradation occurs and provides energy to the body through gluconeogenesis. Weight loss caused by starvation is initially intense and rapid but eventually becomes gradual. A study has shown that during the first week of starvation average weight loss is 0.9kg/day and reduces to 0.3kg/day by the third week." You should probably try reading the article, since the entire thing deals with the science of fasting and starvation and they talk about everything from intermittent fasting to multi-week starvation diets. 72 hour fasts, alternate day fasting, and IF provide the greatest return for the least physiological cost (in that order).