Reddit mentions: The best cancer prevention nutrition books

We need more trials but there's definitely some promising research and case studies. Here are some resources I have bookmarked that may be useful to you:

• Case report of water fasting and diet changes bringing follicular lymphoma into remission.
  
• Case report of water fasting and diet changes bringing brain tumor into remission.
  
• Cancer as a Metabolic Disease by Thomas Seyfried. According to the author this is quite technical because it was written for other academics but check it out if you're into that sort of thing. He also does a lot of podcasts (like this one) if you want to get an easier to understand overview.
  
• Tripping Over the Truth by Travis Christofferson. A book on the same subject that's intended for the general public.
  
  Best of luck to you <3

This is the source, but the research is still in its infancy. Here is his book, but it is very expensive, and I believe that he recommended this instead, at least initially.

Good luck.

Looks like a solid book. Link if someone is interested: https://www.amazon.com/Cancer-Metabolic-Disease-Management-Prevention/dp/0470584920

You want to read these books:

http://amzn.to/1VEpzok - tripping over the truth. About the metabolic theory of cancer.

http://amzn.to/1XsTaCX - cancer as a metabolic disease. This is the full color version of the above with gory pictures and the biology of it.

I've read both and they were very valuable. They'll help you understand why keto helped you during chemo. I hope everything went well for you!

If you can handle it technically, everyone should read Cancer as a Metabolic Disease. Very interesting in terms of a ketogenic diet.

This is a good summary of the research.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0470584920/ref=sr_1_1?crid=8SNG250K6BUQ

If you're interested in the deep medical why, look here. http://www.amazon.com/Cancer-Metabolic-Disease-Management-Prevention/dp/0470584920/ (Warning, the book is very technical and very expensive).

This is one of the first and main books in this field: https://www.amazon.com/Cancer-Metabolic-Disease-Management-Prevention/dp/0470584920

But the origin came from Warburg, a noble prize physician, theory of cancer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warburg_effect

Studies in Greenland have demonstrated that some low-carb diets do not have adverse effects on the cardiovascular system[3] however may increase stroke.[4][5]

[3] http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1370/is_v20/ai_4473542/?tag=content;col1

[4] http://www.amazon.com/Omega-3-Fatty-Acids-Health-Nettleton/dp/0412988615 (link to book)

[5] http://paleohacks.com/questions/6166/is-the-inuit-diet-healthy-really-prove-it#axzz18gH0Tt5u (not a specific source but a bunch of links and information about the Greenland diet.)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3969803/

>However, cancer cells have to compensate for the 18-fold lower efficacy of energy generation (glycolysis only makes 2 ATP per glucose molecule consumed while mitochondrial respiration can produce up to 36 ATP for each glucose molecule catabolized). Part of the solution is to upregulate glucose transporters, especially Glut1, Glut2, Glut3, and Glut4, to uptake more glucose5,22-24. In fact, the increase in glucose uptake is a major feature distinguishing tumor cells from normal cells.

emphasis mine

https://www.amazon.com/Cancer-Metabolic-Disease-Management-Prevention/dp/0470584920

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0065522

This is just a quick response. I'm going to get you more.

https://www.amazon.com/Cancer-Metabolic-Disease-Management-Prevention/dp/0470584920

The guy who wrote this is a scientist and it is actually pretty interesting reading. I work in the cancer diagnostics field (genetic testing and personalized medicine) and I thought this was pretty well thought out but by no means conclusive. There is a lot of research into cancer metabolism, check out those keywords on pub med if you are interested in primary peer reviewed literature.

I only have a very basic understanding of Dr. Seyfried's observations and analysis but the general gist is that extended fasting promotes cell autophagy and starves many tumorous growths (iirc most malignant tumors metabolize glucose).

edit: Looked into it more. HGH affects certain types of cancer. Not sure what this means from a preventive standpoint.

> cancer is a metabolic disease

Cancer as a metabolic disease

You might want to pick a different comparison.

One of the fundamental steps in the development of cancer cells is their deactivation of the mitochondria and upregulation of glycolysis. PET scans use radiolabeled glucose to scan for tumors because of their metabolic activity.

The Ketogenic Diet and Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy Prolong Survival in Mice with Systemic Metastatic Cancer

Thomas Seyfried, Cancer as a Metabolic Disease: On the Origin, Management, and Prevention of Cancer

(That is a textbook, but this next one is written by an investigative journalist):

Travis Christofferson, Tripping over the Truth: How the Metabolic Theory of Cancer Is Overturning One of Medicine's Most Entrenched Paradigms

If you really wanna geek out you can also find and look into the actual cancer genome project results once you have access to it.

If you don't like Atkins and if you're gonna use a variant of the "everything in moderation" argument you're not gonna like what these people have to say about how to treat cancer (but you do have the right attitude to pass medical school: you're repeating conventional wisdom talking points so you won't piss off your professors. Just don't go all Robb Wolf on us; he was about to get a medical license but then decided to go into biochemistry instead after being disillusioned with the medical industry).

​

" You say that medicine is not intellectual, and you are wrong. " What I mean is that it is not a minimum requirement to be a doctor, and most doctors are time-starved, so they're not gonna be looking too hard at the data that's being presented to them by medical researchers. Example Seriously if you think being a doctor will be like living the life of an intellectual you will be very disappointed.

​

Michael Eades mentioned in another blog post about how he just had to accept that his colleagues were used to having such low standards for what was an acceptable fasting blood glucose level in diabetic patients that their patients would end up as leg/foot amputees and blind from the mildly but constantly elevated blood glucose levels, while he himself didn't have this problem with his patients (because he actually knew what he was doing). The fact that his colleagues might learn something from him never occurred to his colleagues. This is what I mean when I say being a doctor is not an intellectual job. He takes an intellectual approach to the job but his colleagues don't; yet they are still allowed to practice medicine. In fact you are literally defending the mindset that his colleagues have in these posts, you just don't know it yet (and hopefully this will change but if it does, expect some people to hate you)

​

By the way you might as well check out this book by what might very well be the oldest living type 1 diabetic. The author was well on his way to dying from diabetes when he figured it out with the help of his physician wife who had access to a glycometer (back then patients weren't allowed to monitor their blood glucose so only a doctor could buy a glucometer). He tried to tell others about how he recovered from certain death but nobody listened so he switched careers and became a doctor. Unfortunately he's also considered a quack by the mainstream because he promotes low carb, which, like I said before, is politically incorrect.

​

Also, Terry Wahls - a medical researcher who got MS, got put in a wheelchair and managed to heal herself enough to no longer need it. Seriosuly. She's also somebody that got labelled a quack and they tried to tell her she "didn't have MS after all" because until her nobody ever reversed MS symptoms (therefore, if she did do it, it must mean she didn't really have it). But unlike Dr. Richard K. Bernstein the label of quack isn't quite sticking to her; she's becoming popular in MS circles as more ppl w/ MS try out her protocol and it worked. And lucky for us she's a medical researcher; last time I checked she's going to be doing some research on her modified paleo / low carb diet

Cancer as a Metabolic Disease: On the Origin, Management, and Prevention of Cancer by Thomas Seyfried An extremely dense, but still somewhat accessible book about the nutrition side of cancer. The author builds on the Warburg effect and argues that cancer is not primarily caused by mutations, but by a reversal of the cell's energy production to a more primitive state (of yeast). This state uses glucose and certain proteins to produce energy via fermentation instead of oxygen. Working from this premise the author suggests fasting and a ketogenic diet to prevent cancer. While the author's arguments were convincing, it sometimes feels he's drifting too far away from mainstream diet and I'd like to see his conclusions supported by more large studies.

Cancer survivor here. I went through two years of chemo and eventually came out in remission. That was about 10 years ago. Recently I started doing more research into the cancer industry and how much of it is really bad science. I urge anyone to look up the mitochondrial and metabolic origins of cancer. Funny how ALL tumors display a dependence on glucose metabolism, due to their impaired oxphos respiration pathway. That's even how we DIAGNOSE tumors, through radiolabeled glucose in PET scans. Restricted carbohydrate (ketogenic) diets have a documented inhibition effect on tumor growth and is probably the most promising lead to a cancer cure that we have ever found. It's a shame that assholes like this girl in the article make the news & exploit people in need.

For a good start on mitochondrial dysfunction and cancer, try Tom Seyfried's book "Cancer as a Metabolic Disease"

My tone WAS annoyed. And as someone who has very little patience for tone policing, here's an information dump to help you, if you bother to read, get over your ignorance.

First, it is incredibly rude to wander into a sub dedicated to a subject, not bother to read the sidebar, and then to say ignorant things in someone's post. Fasting is not the same as starvation, and any casual effort to learn would show you that. Fasting and starvation have completely different metabolic pathways and realities. Most modern medical research about starvation uses the definitions from the landmark Minnesota Starvation Experiment which by definition fed the subjects a very low calorie diet. This stopped the people from being able to actually enter fasting mode. FASTING AND STARVATION ARE TWO RADICALLY DIFFERENT BIOLOGICAL PROCESSES.

Second, the longest medically supervised fast was over 380 days and the subject showed no signs of starvation. The longest medically supervised fast was over 380 days. https://cristivlad.com/total-starvation-382-days-without-food-study/

So no, fasting for a week is not starvation unless you are already at a dangerously low body fat or have a severe metabolic disease.

One reason to fast is that the world's leading scientists on the metabolic nature of cancer say that fasting for seven days, twice a year will basically eliminate your risk of almost every cancer. If you want to learn more, read [https://www.amazon.com/Cancer-Metabolic-Disease-Management-Prevention-ebook/dp/B00852YXZS/ref=sr_1_2?crid=2W25ED19OZJES&keywords=thomas+seyfried&qid=1555889130&s=digital-text&sprefix=Thomas+Sey%2Cdigital-text%2C162&sr=1-2](this book) or look up any interview with Dr. Thomas Seyfried.

Starving yourself for seven days, twice a year, has zero impact on your cancer risks.

Starvation, as the current medical establishment defines it, is extremely low calories. Say, 800 calories a day. There is a huge metabolic gulf between fasting and starvation. First being that fasting is protein sparing and the human body, while it will recycle some proteins through autophagy (primarily targeting broken, damaged, or misfolded proteins) DOES NOT consume muscle or organ proteins. Starvation, especially if the person is eating carbohydrates which stop or stall several of the metabolic switches that make fasting healthy for you, will lead your body to eat your muscle tissues.

Further, fasting helps you gain muscle. Your growth hormone levels go up, insulin goes down, leptin and ghrellin levels reset, and your total daily caloric needs goes up after a day or two. Which means that when you fast, your metabolism INCREASES and when you are done fasting, your appetite DECREASES.

Starvation destroys your metabolism, leaving you with a higher amount of hunger than you started with, and lower total calorie expenditure, which leaves you fighting the 24/7 cravings to eat more food than you need for maintenance, which is why people who have starved tend to get fat.

Fasting has the potential to be an extremely effective treatment for a variety of disorders related to misfolded proteins (heart disease, arterial plaque, alzheimer's disease, MS, Parkinson's disease, etc), diseases of metabolism (fatty liver, type two diabetes, etc), auto immune diseases (type one diabetes, Chron's disease, hasimoto's, Lupus, rhumetoid arthritis, etc), as well as secondary issues from treatment of lyme disease and chemotherapy.

Guess what starvation treats? NONE OF THESE.

You literally have no idea what you are talking about, it's insulting to the people who have done their research and DO know what they are talking about.