Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Wed, Aug-09-17, 12:03
Calianna's Avatar
Calianna Calianna is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 999
 
Plan: Atkins-ish (hypoglycemia)
Stats: 000/000/000 Female 63
BF:
Progress: 50%
Default Colon cancer deaths rise among younger adults, and no one knows why

Quote:
(CNN)Adults in the United States are dying from colon and rectal cancers at an increasing rate about age 50, when they should just be beginning screenings, according to a new study from the American Cancer Society.


Since routine screening is generally not recommended for most adults under 50, the cancers found in younger adults are often in advanced stages and more deadly, said Dr. James Church, a colorectal surgeon at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio.
Church, who was not involved in the new study, said he has seen this trend in death rates up close. Last year, on separate occasions, Church saw two 36-year-olds with stage IV colon cancer, he said.


Quote:
The new study, published Tuesday in the medical journal JAMA, is a followup to one that found that incidence rates of colon and rectal cancers are rising in American adults under 50, the recommended screening age.
According to the previous study, adults born in 1990 could have twice the risk of colon cancer and four times the risk of rectal cancer at the same age had they been born in 1950.
The reason for the rise in both incidence and death rates remains unclear.
"We've known that there's this increasing trend in people under 50 for incidence, but a lot of people were saying, 'Hey, this is good news. This means people are getting more colonoscopies, and cancer's being detected earlier,' " said Rebecca Siegel, an epidemiologist at the American Cancer Society and lead author of the new study.
Now, "what (the new study) indicates is that the increase in incidence is a true increase in disease occurrence and not an artifact of more colonoscopy use," she said. "If it was just colonoscopy use, you wouldn't expect to see an effect on death rates, or even you might see a decline in death rates."


Quote:
A 'surprising' racial divide


The new study included data on colon and rectal cancer diagnoses and death reports for adults ages 20 to 54 in the United States from 1970 to 2014.
The mortality data came from the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Program, as reported by the National Center for Health Statistics, which tracks cause-specific mortality rates.
After analyzing the data, the researchers found that colon and rectal cancer mortality rates among 20- to 54-year-olds declined overall from 1970 to 2004 but then increased by 1% annually from 2004 to 2014. In 2014, the total colorectal mortality rate in that age group was 4.3 people per 100,000.

Additionally, "when we looked at the trend by race, the increase in death rates is confined to whites, and in blacks, we see a slight decline over the entire 45-year study period in death rates," Siegel said. "That's very surprising, because whites and blacks have similar patterns in the major risk factors for colorectal cancer, like obesity," she said. "A lot of people want to look to the natural culprit, obesity, but that probably isn't what's completely driving this increase in colorectal cancer."
It turns out that what's driving the increase in both colorectal cancer incidence and death rates remains a mystery, Siegel said.


Graph at the link.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/08/healt...tudy/index.html
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Wed, Aug-09-17, 12:55
Calianna's Avatar
Calianna Calianna is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 999
 
Plan: Atkins-ish (hypoglycemia)
Stats: 000/000/000 Female 63
BF:
Progress: 50%
Default

I brought this article over, not because it talked about colorectol cancer, and that they can't figure out why there's a difference between racial incidence, since it doesn't seem to be related to obesity, even though that's an interesting observation, because we're told that pretty much all health problems are caused by obesity, especially cancer.

No - I brought it over because of what's NOT mentioned in this article, what's not even alluded to in this article... the possible differences in DIET between the two races.

Working in a grocery store, I see on a daily basis what types of foods people buy. What they buy is what they tend to eat, because most people don't waste their hard earned money continually buying food they won't eat. There are some things that it seems almost everyone buys - for instance, it always seems like almost everyone buys the store-made donuts, even if everything else they buy is organic, fat free, gluten free, lactose free, or whole grain. There are customers who stop by every single morning on their way to work to buy a small green salad and packet of fat free dressing, or a Lean Cuisine to take for lunch... and a donut or two, apparently to eat for breakfast, because of course they're best right out of the fryer, at that time of day.

So when I now say that I've observed one race tends to buy more of one type of food than the other race, please note that this is not a political statement of any kind. Nor is this is any kind of racial profiling, or prejudice. It's not even 100% true of everyone of a particular race, nor is it true for most of a particular race. It is merely an observation, based on years of dealing with customers from all kinds of races, nationalities, and backgrounds, and seeing what's in their grocery carts every week.

What I've noticed is that there's a lot more white than black customers who are apparently making fruits, vegetables (especially leafy greens), and hearthealthywholegrains the mainstay of their diets. If a customer appears to be a vegetarian or vegan (based on purchases of processed non-meat protein sources, such as Quorn, veggie burgers, tofu, seitan, tempeh, or other non-meat substitutes), that customer is more likely to be white than black.

This is all purely casual observation, but one that makes me wonder about a possible relation of dietary fiber content to differing rates of colon cancer incidences between the races, especially in light of what Dr Eades wrote some time back about the way that consuming a lot of fiber damages the colon. (That's not really the article I was thinking about, but still explains it. The one I was thinking of was called something on the order of "A cautionary tale of mucous, fore and aft", but maybe he changed the title of it.)

I suspect that even if it's not just something I've observed at work, that scientists will be a long time even considering the possibility of any connection between a high fiber diet and higher rates of colon cancer, especially since they currently consider a high fiber diet to be protective against colon cancer.
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Wed, Aug-09-17, 13:25
Calianna's Avatar
Calianna Calianna is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 999
 
Plan: Atkins-ish (hypoglycemia)
Stats: 000/000/000 Female 63
BF:
Progress: 50%
Default

Oh - I also meant to mention that another observation (I just read the title of the article again, and remembered this bit) is that with the exception of some very old people who believe they are so constipated that they feel the need to buy multiple bags of prunes, bottles of prune juice, several boxes of bran cereal, and laxatives, the age group most likely to buy loads and loads of whole grains are in approximately the 30-50 age group... the very age group that the article indicates are dying from colorectal cancer.

My guess is that they're damaging their colons with excess fiber, to the point of causing cancerous cell mutations.
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Wed, Aug-09-17, 15:31
Bonnie OFS Bonnie OFS is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,957
 
Plan: Dr. Bernstein
Stats: 188/160/135 Female 5 ft 4 inches
BF:
Progress: 53%
Location: NE WA
Default

You might have a point! I remember that about too much fiber causing problems.

My husband could have been a poster boy for high fiber & laxatives. Then I went lchf - and since I'm the head cook, he came along for the ride. He eats more carbs than I do - mostly fruit - but for both of us the fiber went way down. With the addition of more sat fats he stopped having problems - & his hemorrhoids went away.

It will be interesting if the picture inside has improved when he gets his next colonoscopy.
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Wed, Aug-09-17, 18:23
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Posts: 9,850
 
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/162/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 83%
Location: USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calianna
Oh - I also meant to mention that another observation (I just read the title of the article again, and remembered this bit) is that with the exception of some very old people who believe they are so constipated that they feel the need to buy multiple bags of prunes, bottles of prune juice, several boxes of bran cereal, and laxatives, the age group most likely to buy loads and loads of whole grains are in approximately the 30-50 age group... the very age group that the article indicates are dying from colorectal cancer.

My guess is that they're damaging their colons with excess fiber, to the point of causing cancerous cell mutations.


I tend to agree with you. I am actually sensitive to having too much fiber.
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Thu, Aug-10-17, 02:13
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,197
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

Well, if we rely on Campbell's cancer research, we could posit that they ingested aflatoxin to cause cancer, then casein to make it grow. But people are not rats, so meh.

I prefer the theory of metabolic disorder, as a baseline at least. Le me put it this way. Think of anything that can cause cancer. Now ask, does that thing also make it grow? It's the difference between kicking a rock off a cliff, and gravity accelerating this rock as it falls. The kick cannot accelerate the rock like that, it needs gravity for that. The same is true for cancer. The initial cause cannot make it grow, it can only create the initial cancerous cell. For a healthy body, that cell is promptly taken care of, just like it does with minor injury and benign infection. For that initial cancerous cell to proliferate and grow into a tumor, the systems that otherwise protect must be disrupted, i.e. immune function mostly. That's not all, the overall environment must also be made growth-friendly, i.e. hormonal signaling and fuel.

So, initial trigger, immune suppression (or immune overwhelm, as in the immune system can't cope), favorable environment.

For our purpose, we should look at what's happening in the colon. We've been talking about gut bugs for a while so we have an idea about that, but we talk about that from the point of view of an elsewhere effect, not in-situ effect. Well, let's imagine that some bad gut bugs are the culprit here, as one possible initial trigger. The stuff we eat is obvious, but I bet not many of you thought of gut bugs, ya? Well, does any of this have the ability to make cancer grow? Possible but doubtful, so let's not get stuck on that as the sole explanation for colon cancer.

For immune suppression, I have a couple ideas. The first is simple. Sugar suppresses the immune system, that's it for that. A more elaborate idea is gut bugs again. Let's say there's some bugs that have adapted to suppress the immune system, and they love carbs. Well, if that's what we feed them, they'll grow and eventually be strong enough to suppress the immune system enough to prevent the normal handling of cancerous cells. Just a few of them won't do it, they need to be an army. Let's grow an army. Done.

Favorable environment is easy. Cancer loves insulin and glucose. The two come together all the time with a high-carb diet. That's it for that.

Turn this around and see how a low-carb diet works to counter cancer. Can low-carb fix that initial cause? Probably not, if it's an infection for example. Can it fix the immune suppression? Maybe, if it's just from diet alone, otherwise only partly. Can it fix the favorable environment? Absolutely, and pretty quickly.

So here's how to use LC to figure out the initial trigger and the immune suppression, and maybe the favorable environment. If LC doesn't do what it should - i.e. cancer growth is not halted or reversed - then we can be pretty sure that the cause of the favorable environment is not merely diet, it's some other agent. The most likely culprit here is an infection by some pathogen with the ability to alter our DNA, a virus probably. We don't even need to look at immune suppression because that pathogen likely has the ability to do that too, and maybe also the ability to trigger the initial cancerous cell. On the other hand, if LC does its thing and cancer growth is halted or even reversed, we know that the favorable environment was mostly diet, but it could still be partly some infection or something else. Either way, it's obvious that there was immune suppression because that initial cell was not taken care of, so even if LC does its thing and everything's going great, look for any opportunistic pathogen that could have taken advantage of the immune suppression to get cozy, fix it, done. At this point, there's not much point in looking for the initial trigger, the favorable environment is gone, the immune suppression is gone, any initial trigger is now in danger of being nipped in the bud.

In a general point of view with regards to early colon cancer, we could look at early diabetes type 2 and early obesity for reference. Whatever happens, now happens earlier. There's no difference between the cause of obesity for a 40-year-old and a 10-year-old - insulin. Well, whatever causes colon cancer in 60-somethings must also do it in 30-somethings. Since they're younger, the dose must be that much higher.

Don't take any of this too seriously, I just made it up as I was writing.
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Thu, Aug-10-17, 03:24
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is online now
To Good Health!
Posts: 9,188
 
Plan: IF Fung/LC Westman/Primal
Stats: 222/172/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/25.3%/24%
Progress: 94%
Location: NC
Default

That was good for "making it up as you wrote".
Dr Fung published a new article on "Growth diseases"...insulins impact on any disease of excess growth (bad news in adults) .... cancer, PCOS, kidney cysts, etc. He ends up at Fasting as a possible remedy, but the reasons how he got there involving nutrient sensors is interesting.

https://medium.com/~drjasonfung/muc...nd-868a73734a63

Quote:
Fasting and Polycystic diseases

Much new and interesting data support the benefits of fasting in diseases other than obesity and type 2 diabetes. This often relates to the role of nutrient sensors in the body. Everybody always believes that increased growth is good. But the simple truth is that excessive growth in adults is almost always bad. Excessive growth is the hallmark of cancer, for example. Excessive growth leads to increased scarring and fibrosis. Excessive growth of cysts leads to the disease of polycystic kidney disease (PCKD) and polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS).

Excessive growth in adults tends to be horizontal, not vertical. In most cases of adult disease, we want less growth, not more. This leads naturally to the topic of mechanisms where the body regulates growth. One of the most exciting areas of research focus around nutrient sensors. Insulin is one example of a nutrient sensor. You eat protein or carbohydrates, and insulin goes up. This signals the body that there are enough nutrients to increase growth. Insulin is well known as a growth factor as well and shares a lot of homology with IGF-1 — Insulin Like Growth Factor.....

Continues at link

Last edited by JEY100 : Fri, Aug-11-17 at 02:20.
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Thu, Aug-10-17, 05:24
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 10,849
 
Plan: ketosis/IF
Stats: 190/158/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 89%
Location: Ontario
Default

http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...bstract/2647859

Graphs for white, black, and combined here. One thing you can see--even with the bounce up, black people are still getting more colon cancer mortality than white people. Mortality is expressed as cases per 100 000, looking at the graph, it looks like 2004 to 2014 the number for "white" increases from around 3.8 or so to around 4, so we're down to trying to explain a couple of cases per million.
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Thu, Aug-10-17, 08:12
Zuleikaa Zuleikaa is offline
Posts: 16,564
 
Plan: Mishmash
Stats: 365/350.4/160 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 7%
Location: Maryland, US
Default

Vitamin D deficiency? A link has already been shown.

I'm just sayin'
Reply With Quote
  #10   ^
Old Thu, Aug-10-17, 13:00
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,197
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JEY100
That was good was "making it up as you wrote".
Dr Fung published a new article on "Growth diseases"...insulins impact on any disease of excess growth (bad news in adults) .... cancer, PCOS, kidney cysts, etc. He ends up at Fasting as a possible remedy, but the reasons how he got there involving nutrient sensors is interesting.

https://medium.com/~drjasonfung/muc...nd-868a73734a63

Alright, so the idea is that insulin is a growth agent, and too much of it will cause too much growth, and that growth is mostly horizontal. Let's use growth hormone for comparison to see if it's actually growth we're seeing with insulin. Their overall action is different.

Insulin. Normally regulates fuel systems primarily, and protein synthesis and enzyme production and so forth secondarily. Don't need much of it for that. Too much will first disrupt these systems, resulting in growth of these mechanisms rather than normal growth otherwise. With normal insulin, there is no growth to speak of. Instead it's more of a normal balance of stuff going in and out of these tissues, so fat and glycogen and protein and enzymes, etc. Some tissues will actually grow from the action of insulin, like fat tissue for example which will grow permanently in a process called insulin-induced lipohypertrophy, this needs chronic hyperinsulinemia.

Growth hormone. Normally causes growth, rather than regulate it. Though if we see it as regulation, not enough of it will stunt growth, too much will cause excess growth. The tissues that grow from GH are generally different from those that respond to insulin. Mostly it's all lean tissues. This growth is typically permanent as well, but there's normally very little growth and it's in the context of repair and maintenance when past puberty. Since GH causes muscle growth, there is some horizontal growth as well, obviously, but it's just as obvious that this growth is more health-giving than otherwise.

Insulin and GH are directly linked by diet - carbs - through the inhibitory action of hyperglycemia on GH. Too much carbs ==>> GH inhibition. Between insulin and GH, GH is the most potent growth agent for basically all tissues. On the other hand, insulin is the most potent growth agent for things we don't want to grow - fat tissue, cancer. In a general sense, growth occurs between meals, i.e. while we sleep for example, GH does its thing; insulin, when it's too high, disrupts Ein-Eout at the fat tissue which results in less fat coming out - net result is excess fat accumulation in the short term, insulin-induced lipohypertrophy in the long term.

Insulin and GH are also directly linked by growth itself. When GH says "grow", insulin is bypassed by other hormones and enzymes to release more fuel for this growth. When insulin is too high, there's no bypass or very little, so little growth. But then when insulin is too high, usually it's because there's too much carbs, so GH itself will be influenced before it can even say "grow". But let's imagine GH responds normally, it's not inhibited by hyperglycemia. Insulin is too high, doesn't allow enough fuel for growth, GH becomes basically useless. We could even imagine that since insulin acts as a growth agent for things that we don't want to grow, but GH is still the most potent growth agent for everything, now we have two growth agents for things we don't want to grow instead of just the one - insulin + GH, instead of just insulin.

So, is it actually growth? Yes, to some extent, but only for a few specific tissues, while all other tissues don't grow, in fact they shrink due to lack of GH from the hyperglycemia (if the main culprit is a high-carb diet). Think of it as a car where the gas tank grows too big. It's not actually growth, it's just the fuel systems that are disrupted in such a way as to accumulate too much fuel primarily, and generally grow bigger to accomodate this excess fuel, while the engine sputters because it's not getting enough fuel (the primary mechanism by which that gas tank grows larger). And this abnormal growth is not necessarily growth as we understand it, rather it's a side effect of the disruption of the systems that do grow. For this, imagine garbage collectors go on strike. Well, garbage will accumulate right on the sidewalk, but not as a first thing, instead it's a by-product of lack of garbage trucks, see?

As a side note, my paradigm says there's a normal balance of fuel substrates - glucose and ketones primarily. This balance is directly linked to insulin level in a three-way. When glucose rises, insulin rises, ketones drop. When glucose drops, insulin drops, ketones rise. See how both glucose and insulin rise and drop together, while ketones opposes them. At first we understand it from the point of view of diet, right? But when we inject ketones directly, ketones rise (obviously), then both glucose and insulin drop. I believe this balance is essential for normal cell function, so when this balance is disrupted (especially by a high-carb diet, and especially when ketogenesis is shut down by too much insulin), all cells can't work properly, this also means the fuel systems and the growth systems. So, normal growth is less than otherwise, while abnormal growth (growth that can occur even if or because those systems are disrupted) occurs more than otherwise. A sort of favorable environment, if you want.
Reply With Quote
  #11   ^
Old Thu, Aug-10-17, 18:45
Meme#1's Avatar
Meme#1 Meme#1 is offline
Posts: 7,518
 
Plan: Atkins DANDR
Stats: 210/183/160 Female 5'4"
BF:
Progress: 54%
Location: Texas
Default

Maybe it's this?

http://emfrefugee.blogspot.mx/

The Wireless industry lobbyists based their RF/MW radiation exposure guideline on a false and scientifically-unsound assumption that living organisms can dissipate the biological effects of RF/MW radiation exposures. Substantial scientific evidence (over 25,000 studies since the 1920’s) have proven immediate and direct short-term biological damages from RF/MW radiation exposures at levels far below what we measured on Palo Alto sidewalks on 4/21/17. There are also long-term biological damages caused by these levels of RF/MW radiation.
•Immediate direct hazards from RF/MW radiation exposures: adverse effects on blood, brain, heart, hormone, sleep and neurological functions, including tinnitus, insomnia, difficulty concentrating, heart palpitations and suppression of melatonin. Melatonin is a critically-important hormone needed to fight cancer and maintain circadian rhythms. All of this has been established in tens of thousands of peer-reviewed scientific studies and these adverse bio-effects are seen at RF/MW radiation levels far below the scientifically discredited FCC RF/MW radiation guidelines. (BioInitiative 2012,PowerWatch Study List, EMF Scientists Appeal)
•Long-term hazards from RF/MW radiation exposures: early dementia and deadly cancers of the brain, heart, breast, colon and testicles. (IARC Monograph 102, Lennart Hardell’s Additional Work after 2011, 2016 NTP Study on Carcinogenesis of RF/MW radiation exposures.
Reply With Quote
  #12   ^
Old Thu, Aug-10-17, 20:11
Calianna's Avatar
Calianna Calianna is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 999
 
Plan: Atkins-ish (hypoglycemia)
Stats: 000/000/000 Female 63
BF:
Progress: 50%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teaser
http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...bstract/2647859

Graphs for white, black, and combined here. One thing you can see--even with the bounce up, black people are still getting more colon cancer mortality than white people. Mortality is expressed as cases per 100 000, looking at the graph, it looks like 2004 to 2014 the number for "white" increases from around 3.8 or so to around 4, so we're down to trying to explain a couple of cases per million.


The mortality rate could have something to do with lack of early diagnosis. Earlier screenings seems to be something they're pushing for, since the differences they mentioned were among those who are well under the age when they recommend starting screenings.
Reply With Quote
  #13   ^
Old Thu, Aug-10-17, 20:27
Calianna's Avatar
Calianna Calianna is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 999
 
Plan: Atkins-ish (hypoglycemia)
Stats: 000/000/000 Female 63
BF:
Progress: 50%
Default

As far as carbs and insulin being possible factors, another observation from work is that both races generally buy lots and lots of carbs - sugary sodas, candy, cookies, the aforementioned donuts, lots of breads, pastas, and potatoes.

Although, if the customer appears to be vegan, there's a more serious concentration on leafy greens, not nearly as much in the way of starchy carbs.
Reply With Quote
  #14   ^
Old Thu, Aug-10-17, 20:35
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,197
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

"Tens of thousands"? Even conservatively, that's 200 studies per year for the past 100 years, for a single phenomenon. Nah, Imma say there's probably about a dozen studies on this, and only in recent decades since the development of the cell phone, and only observational in humans. Even if the effect is real, it's certainly not as powerful as a high-carb diet, for basically any particular effect we're looking at. Let's see. Stop using everything that emits RF/MW for a year, see if there's any effect as strong as going low-carb for a year, like with the A-TO-Z experiment for example. Or the other way, if the effect was really that strong, going low-carb wouldn't produce such dramatic and positive results, ya?

Imagine that same website was showing off the multitude benefits of going low-carb, then comparing that to going RF/MW-free. I wonder if it would maintain its credibility about RF/MW. That website reminds of the street lamp and the guy looking for his keys. Except this time, the guy sniped all the other street lights with his BB gun to make sure there was only one spot he could see. A paper cut is the most painful thing when you aren't giving birth, or something like that, see what I mean?
Reply With Quote
  #15   ^
Old Fri, Aug-11-17, 10:12
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Posts: 9,850
 
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/162/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 83%
Location: USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M Levac

In a general point of view with regards to early colon cancer, we could look at early diabetes type 2 and early obesity for reference. Whatever happens, now happens earlier. There's no difference between the cause of obesity for a 40-year-old and a 10-year-old - insulin. Well, whatever causes colon cancer in 60-somethings must also do it in 30-somethings. Since they're younger, the dose must be that much higher.

Don't take any of this too seriously, I just made it up as I was writing.


I do like your reasoning, and your explanation makes sense to me.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 17:31.


Copyright © 2000-2017 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.