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 Health & Technical Forums > General Health
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Thu, Mar-31-22, 11:18
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 4,038
 
Plan: Very LC, Higher Protein
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default Champ: The Relationship Between Fat and Cancer

Excellent article: "The Manchurian Cell The Relationship Between Fat and Cancer and Why Muscle Matters".

Link on fat and cancer from Dr. Champ's most recent newsletter. Very interesting and informative in terms of what's happening and how to avoid it in favor of better health.
An excerpt:
Quote:
"In 2013, a scientific report on fat and cancer baffled scientists and physicians. A usual, the nightly news had a field day with the findings. A massive analysis of all available studies assessing weight status and survival revealed that being overweight or mildly obese was associated with longer survival in a group of individuals.1 Some evidence even suggested that overweight individuals may have been the healthiest with the lowest risk of cancer. Many, like myself read and watched this in disbelief. Have we been wrong all this time? Was a new French Paradox emerging?"

Full article:
https://colinchamp.com/fat-and-canc...muscle-matters/
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Thu, Apr-28-22, 04:45
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 14,655
 
Plan: EpiPaleo/Primal/LowOx
Stats: 220/125/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 136%
Location: USA
Default

What an excellent article! Decades of DNA research hasn't gotten us anywhere. The mutation theory has serious holes in it.

Was it always an assumption that since we now have a hammer, everything is a nail?
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Thu, Apr-28-22, 08:47
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 4,038
 
Plan: Very LC, Higher Protein
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Yes, I believe so. It's just easier that way, and today more than ever, people seem to want everything to be easy. I choose to believe that embracing life's challenges makes fulfillment possible. I'm going to be wrong in some cases, but overall I'm happier.
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Thu, Apr-28-22, 17:47
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 14,655
 
Plan: EpiPaleo/Primal/LowOx
Stats: 220/125/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 136%
Location: USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GRB5111
I choose to believe that embracing life's challenges makes fulfillment possible. I'm going to be wrong in some cases, but overall I'm happier.


I'm with you, Bob. Things are only easy once we've learned them.
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Fri, Apr-29-22, 07:10
Ms Arielle's Avatar
Ms Arielle Ms Arielle is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 19,210
 
Plan: atkins, carnivore 2023
Stats: 200/211/163 Female 5'8"
BF:
Progress: -30%
Location: Massachusetts
Default

Reminds me of the equation learned in livestock breeding.


g + e= p

Genotype + environment = phenotype

E far outweighs the impact of genotype to create the physical outcome aka phenotype. Hard to find a gene over 40%. Meaning environmental impact is over 60%. Food and toxins and housing are just two of the nearly endless "environmental" factors .

I too was sucked into the genetic theory of cancer as it was the only option the oncologists offered at the time. A wrong headed theory.

After watching my mother with melanoma, 2x breast cancer and now colon cancer.... Her cancers appeared later in life than her mother by 20 years. Why later? Why at all? Why can't body eliminate these wayward cells early on---why do these cells overwhelm our built in protective systems...?



Is the answer simply a decrease in exercise like less gardening, less laundry, more injuries that kept her off her feet...

Looking for reading this article in detail.

Last edited by Ms Arielle : Fri, Apr-29-22 at 07:18.
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Fri, Apr-29-22, 08:14
Nancy LC's Avatar
Nancy LC Nancy LC is offline
Experimenter
Posts: 25,859
 
Plan: DDF
Stats: 202/185.4/179 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 72%
Location: San Diego, CA
Default

I like the saying:

Genetics loads the gun, environment pulls the trigger.

But I think in some cases, genetics unloads the gun. Which is why certain genetic groups can be so long lived despite things that kill the rest of us.

About the article, we're supposed to believe (from a bodybuilding website) that the reason for this paradox is because everyone who lived longer is because they're carrying way more muscle than regular fat people? That's quite the leap of faith and sounds like wishful thinking.

Last edited by Nancy LC : Fri, Apr-29-22 at 08:22.
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 03:18.


Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.