Dr Champ, way back when writing as The Caveman Doctor, was the doctor who most influenced me to take the seriousness of just being fat, an overweight BMI, as the biggest modifiable risk to prevent a cancer reoccurrence.

-Fat mass produces an overabundance of hormones and inflammatory chemicals that work against our immune system and metabolism. Are we minimizing it?

Highly recommend his website, research papers and monthly newsletter.
Especially good for debunking the myths around the Ketogenic Diet and Cancer.
https://colinchamp.com/the-ketogeni...-stand-in-2018/

Just bringing it up, because they never talk about the anti-nutrients, like lectins, which can be a serious problem to the sensitive. I found a mega-study which revealed this is another one of those "it worked in a petri dish/mouse" kind of thing.

It might be true. But it might be only half the story, as so many early studies have gone by the wayside.

Also, this article should mentioned the use of glycophosphate with it showing up in grain products. With the big plant-based push, are people eating more? It's a known hazard with groundskeepers and golf course personnel getting cancer and neuro-logical disease.

Of course, I think we know how sugar itself feeds the cancer. They have it on film.

"Sugar feeds cancer" is a persistent myth. I believed it for some years after my diagnosis, but the latest research shows it is only indirectly involved. Mayo Clinic summary for patients.


https://connect.mayoclinic.org/blog...le-in-cancer-1/


https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/obesity/index.htm

While this wording is accurate, it is not direct. I think pinning things to CVD, diabetes, and cancer as all metabolic diseases is a step forward.

People who are not familiar with science don't understand this. They need simple certainty, and if they want to wait for scientific consensus to catch up, that is their business, I suppose.

But I have to "nutshell" it for them with informal conversation. So feel free to correct me!

But face to face, I do what Gloria Swanson used to do. Point out that it's poison

Certainly a symptom of metabolic derangement, which is not a word I use lightly. But the last few years has been a cascade of new research which explains lots of things, including how sugar makes you metabolically deranged. That leads to overconsumption and overweight.

Sugar awareness is already underway. Despite the best efforts of the beverage companies.

At a MRI facility this week..there was one other women in the waiting room who was a normal weight...and ten obese women, all had abdominal obesity, a waist to height ratio far into the unhealthy range. I observed and wondered if any had heard "Sugar Feeds Cancer", had they also heard that the Keto Diet allows them to eat all the butter and bacon they want, or make Keto Treats with AS and loads of fat.

Every major cancer center still has a similar position to Mayo Clinic.
It's not directly the diet, but being overweight for 13 cancers, uterine cancer has particularly strong signal https://optimisingnutrition.com/what-is-a-healthy-bmi/

https://colinchamp.com/a-basic-life...ncer-treatment/

The only thing is that there seems to be exceptions to every "rule", so maybe I just happen to have known many exceptions to the rule of obesity being related to cancer (I'm including the treatment and recurrence status, because to me it seems just as pertinent as the original diagnosis and weight status):

Of the women I knew who have died from cancer, the one was thin her entire life - ovarian cancer, recurred after initial treatments, died in her mid-40's.

The other was at most only slightly overweight for a few years as an adult (and as an Amish woman, she'd spent most of her adult life pregnant or nursing, so the little-extra was necessary to sustain the pregnancies and milk production. In her case, it was breast cancer - Died at age 35.


Those who have been diagnosed but survived, and have had no recurrence:

One woman with breast cancer (caught while she was no older than early 30's, treated with no recurrence) was never overweight.

Another woman with breast cancer - caught and treated at age 70, no recurrence - overweight (but not obese), later diagnosed with diabetes.

Another with ovarian cancer - never overweight, caught very early while in her 20's, treated. No recurrence.


Those are the only ones I can think of right at the moment - not because most were exceptions to the rule of obesity being linked to cancer, but because they were the cancer patients I was closest to long enough to know their pre-cancer weight status, and the outcome of their illness.

I could name dozens of women who have been obese or morbidly obese for 4 decades or longer - and yet have made it to their 60's or 70's with no cancer.

I'm not saying the statistics are wrong, but sometimes what you see in real life completely contradicts it.

Just as an aside on the topic of cancer risk -

I spent the first 12 years of my life living on a farm across the road from a stone quarry that had high amounts of asbestos in the rock. Dust which contained lots of asbestos would billow down into the hollow where the farm was located. Everything was covered with that dust - the yard, the fields, inside the house (because of course there was no AC, so we had to have windows open)

Since asbestos was so common in the rock in that area, my brother often found rocks on the farm with asbestos fibers in them - we'd play with those rocks, fascinated that no matter how many times we tried to set fire to them, we couldn't get the asbestos fibers to burn.

After constant exposure to asbestos dust for 12 years and playing with rocks that had asbestos in them, one would think that at least some member of my family would have ended up with lung cancer - none of us has ever had any kind of cancer. I'm the only one in the family who has been overweight or obese (and that for most of my life). I'm 70 - brother is 72, sister is 65.

In addition, my brother and I were from the era when obstetricians regularly did x-rays of the pregnant woman's abdomen throughout pregnancy.

Oh and also when I had my tonsils removed at age 6, the surgeon said he was unable to remove my adenoids because they were too large. I was given radiation treatments to stop the growth of my adenoids because with the rate they were growing, otherwise he claimed I would have ended up completely deaf by age 14.

Of course we all played outdoors in the sun (and asbestos dust) for hours on end - no sunblock at all.

If anyone on this planet is a powder keg for cancer based on carcinogen, radiation, and UV exposure, obesity, and high insulin levels - you'd think it would be me. I have no explanation for how I've made it to age 70 unscathed.

Cancer is complete cated, yet its also very simple.

Cancer runs in my family. When not if. Ive looked for answers, looked to Dana Farber fir answers. But found no prevention just offering drugs when the cancer pops up.

I kept digging on line. Holding onto my basic genetics education, based on a couple semesters of breeding livestock,that this formula cannot be ignored:

Genotype + environment= phenotype

Lits of money went into livestock in the USA, especially dairy cows.

Genes exhibiting at 35% are few. Most are at 10-20%. This makes changes in genetic frequencies a slow generational process.

With effort it gave us the commerical meat chickens we all buy at the supermarket. A fast growing, big breasted chicken.

Environmental factors are the BIGGEST factor. 75%

We have changed our environment significantly in 100 years. Three meals a day has become three meals plus 2-3 snacks. ( That was recommendation by a reg dietitian to me in an appointment, to manage gestational diabetes. I dropped the handouts in trash and believed in DANDR.) The exposure to chemicals in everyday cleaning agents, chemicals contaminating water, our foods covered in Roundup( one of many ) and Apeel, antibiotics starting as infants, dental treatments for cavities.

I listened to a podcast today proclaiming during WWII that 45% of our food was attributed to Victory Gardens and home grown meats and eggs.

Then she discussed remote groups of people with zero dental issues and almost NO cancer. Hummm? 🤔 Why?? Or better, why not??

I cant control the air I breathe but at least government regulation has removed leaded gas, its going after diesel exhaust. Tobacco use has been reduced markedly since the scandal where the tobacco companies put earnings over health of the users.

And these examples are tip of the iceberg.




Imho our genetic will dictate the kind of cancer but the environmental exposure will trigger it.

I am at risk for diabetes2, colon cancer , breast cancer and ovarian cancer.. What are the triggers???

Ive suspected and found recent confirmation that Vitamin D is preventative. Thank Goodness, I never out sun blick on my kids , unless going out on water. My mother sunbathed all year long ,including a sun cabinet: her cancer developed years after it developed in her mother, and years after stopping the excessive sun exposure.

Vitamin D levels matter!!

We dont fast anymore. Its was originally due to lack of food,not its a planned day to skip breakfast or dinner, or skip a whole day. We are consumed by what we eat but fail to realize NOT eating had real health impacts.

If excess skin, leftover from rapid weight loss, is a problem, then fasting is the fix. The body can remodel. It can use autophagy to restructure the biggest organ, the skin. I can imagine what it can do throughout the body.

......how we live today results in cancer.......looking back to when we were cancer free gives answers. Look at how the peoples who live the old ways are free of "modern" diseases.

No teeth decay
No obesity
Regular exercise
Limited chemical exposure
Fresh foods, home grown, no chemicals
Fermented foods
Breast feeding all babies
Chew real good, not mush.

For me the biggest issue is how to live the better life surrounded by the "modern" lifestyle that creates disease and cancer.

For me, the cancer connection with sugar comes from the fact that we have two systems: fat burning or carb burning. Carb burning is one of those short term things you get into when the berries ripen, and when the harvest comes in, and things like that.

But most of the time we wouldn't have enough carbs to be sugar burners. We'd be in ketosis.

Since carbs are not essential, ketosis must be our natural state, and it even builds in an indulgence for the winter solstice holidays 🤣

Maybe the thing is that our sugar burning system is not meant to be something we're in 24/7 & all year.

I look forward to receiving emails from Colin Champ. With the utmost respect for all on this forum. I suggest that the Colin Champ reference where he is claimed to be debunking be read very carefully, as I see differences with a few of the conclusions discussed on this thread. The thing to keep in mind is that the findings to date are very nuanced among those actually carrying out the research. So when I hear information from those selling subscriptions to dietary approaches, I want to find additional information from those actually conducting the research before I buy what's being sold.

The quest to chase lower blood glucose is an admirable one in the absence of being able to easily measure insulin at home based on diet. However, there are limitations to glucose readings, and it's not always a marker for good/bad health and certainly not an indicator that the measures being taken to fight or prevent cancer are working. The interesting thing is that all can be right to a degree, but the degree to which one would make lifestyle changes means everything, and we've not got a set of fundamentally sound recommendations that when applied to everyone, will have the same results. Yes, we are all snowflakes . . .

Here's an interesting presentation by Dr. Champ in October of the same year (2018) when he wrote the article referenced (January):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCK6t966xx0

Here's another by Dr. Thomas Seyfried who is doing cancer research and has occasionally cited Dr. Champ's papers:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIUi8_rWBlA

The curious thing about debunking keto is that many have an alternative that they are selling. That's fine, and I respect that, but for the many who have found that being in fat burning mode regularly helps to maintain a healthy weight and can function as a prevention for metabolic disease, these facts can't be discounted. It appears that what originally started as a protocol to improve health by reducing carbs has now developed opposing camps. In reality, the lifestyle that I lead may not work well for many, so I have no right to claim that my way is the answer for anyone else but me. But it has worked very well. Chasing a specific blood glucose level before I'm able to eat, not so much when speaking from direct experience.

I found this meta-study:

Diabetes, Glycated Hemoglobin, and Risk of Cancer in the UK Biobank Study

Sample size almost half a million, 54% women.



There you go, clear connections with elevated blood sugar and cancer. The why needs to be untangled but "normal blood sugar control" is always going to win in a health contest.

They can't do it with drugs as well as a person can with proper diet. Medically, that is something preferable, as most people prefer their own limbs instead of the finest prosthesis, no? They justify the drug for something the patient can do better by themselves, like getting Prozac because it's cheaper than actual therapy.

And at this point we have people who grew up/lived through all the bad food advice and I think they have given up. Learned helplessness.

Because their brain only sees the junk as "food." They can't even imagine what it's like to eat properly because none of them did as plant-based moved inexorably into everything. It's now got a grip on their critical thinking but most of the people they know thinks this same way, from the same struggles.

We are telling them the exact opposite every authority in their lives has told them to do, and death by meat and fat is the one they have feared for years. They don't know it's a lie.

But then again, I'm watching a woman living in Spain (Cabana Chronicles ) who no longer has symptoms of MS on a carnivore diet and her neurologist pats her on the head (metaphorically) through eight years knowing she has refuses the drugs and tells her, "Then you don't need a MRI."

But she needs one. To see if the lesions left and so she doesn't have to pay ten times the going rate to get insurance for a doctor who is doing nothing because she reports no symptoms. But since "MS can't be cured" she has restrictions on her license and other things that she shouldn't have to do.

They have to ignore people like that. Even doctors. Every bit of their training tells them so.

That 2020 Biobank study is one of about 6 other similar studies
related to the one Optimizing Nutrition used for its BMI article, posted here before, using a sample of 3.6 million adults. Optimal BMI for Longevity and Optimal Health (And How to Achieve It)https://optimisingnutrition.com/what-is-a-healthy-bmi/

Risk of 16 cancers across the full glycemic spectrum: a population-based cohort study using the UK Biobank https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32859587/

Neither of these articles has associations to diet. There are diabetics who use the high carb Mastering Diabetes, Dr. Mcdougall Starch Solution or Dr. Bernard Reversing Diabetes plans. I think lowish carb is better for controlling BG, but a Low fat high carb diet is another option to lower HbA1c.

Yes! I have also come to think that ketosis would be our natural state, and a state we would only leave occasionally (seasonal sweet fruits, etc). Eating a lot of sugar, which is something so many modern day people do because sugar seems to be in virtually all processed foods, creates a situation in which the body is over-producing insulin almost continually. I'm not diabetic or even near it, but if I eat a lot of sugar I feel quite sick, surely that is my body telling me to cut back immediately. I always feel best, healthiest, most energetic, most clear headed when I'm not eating any sugar at all.